Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Post Office Network

David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the future of the rural post office network.

Angela Watkinson: What plans he has to safeguard the long-term future of the post office network.

David Evennett: What plans he has to safeguard the long-term future of the post office network.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is not able to answer questions today because he is on a trade trip to China. He has notified colleagues on the Opposition Front Benches.
	The Government have invested more than £2 billion since 1999 in the post office network, because we know that post offices are an important part of British life, particularly in rural and deprived urban areas. We will announce shortly our proposals to ensure a long-term stable footing for a continued national post office network.

David Taylor: The village post office is on the edge of an abyss. Some 80 per cent. of those 8,000 vital businesses would collapse without the annual Department of Trade and Industry support subsidy, due to end in 16 months, and the Post Office card account, which will expire in 2010. To survive, the rural network needs the lifelines of post office-based banking products, preference in the distribution of Government services and an early White Paper to spell out a clear future framework. Does my hon. Friend—who is the most astute of Ministers—think that he is doing enough to tackle that most acute of crises?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend will be able to make his own judgment shortly, because, as the Secretary of State has said, he will make an announcement before the Christmas recess. Because of my hon. Friend's long family association with the Post Office, he knows that the current position is unsustainable, with losses of £100 million per year, expected to rise to £200 million per year. Investment from the Government since 1999 has been £2 billion, including £150 million for the rural network, which, as my hon. Friend says, will continue until 2008. We know that POCA must have a successor, and that Government assistance will be required to maintain a viable national network. My hon. Friend will shortly be able to see the outcome of all the Government's efforts, particularly over the past six months.

Angela Watkinson: The remaining sub-post offices in Upminster are mostly also convenience stores, in which sub-postmasters have expanded the range of services to make businesses viable. Those provide an important service, especially for elderly people who do not drive and cannot get to the main shopping areas. Will the Minister review his decision to abolish the post office card account and enable post offices to expand the range of services that they provide, rather than slowly strangling them?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady accords me status above my station by saying that I made the decision to abolish the post office card account. First, that would not be my decision. Secondly, no such decision has been taken. The Department for Work and Pensions is in negotiations with Post Office Ltd. and others about a successor to the Post Office card account, and we have given assurances to the House that there will be a successor, as, regardless of what happens, more than 1 million people will be dependent on that to receive their benefits. As we all know, the vast majority of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are small business people, and they sometimes trade jointly and service communities with other products. We are doing what we can to assist them, and we know how important they are to communities. When the Secretary of State makes his announcement shortly, the hon. Lady will see that we have made provision to do the best we can for the whole network.

David Evennett: I welcome what the Minister has said today, because Bexley has lost nearly half its post offices or sub-post offices in the past five years. Will he reaffirm that the coming statement will also take into account the needs of the suburbs, which require local post offices or sub-post offices to be viable, sustainable communities? Such facilities need to be near where people live.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We fully acknowledge the role that post offices play in communities and the essential services that they provide for many. We have also been helping them to develop new products over the years. For example, the Post Office is now the biggest supplier of foreign currency and the biggest provider of independent travel insurance, and has launched new saver accounts this year. It is looking to expand its business. Equally, however, 800,000 private vehicle owners bought their tax discs online last year, and more than 3 million have already done so this year. We know that internet banking, mobile phone technology and the rest are changing people's habits, and the Post Office must expand its range of services. We have a dual job: to support the network to be as wide as possible, and, equally, to expand its range of services and products for a securer financial footing.

David Kidney: Later today, Labour Members have a meeting with Postcomm and Postwatch to discuss these important matters. Can my hon. Friend assure me that Ministers are in discussion with Postcomm and Postwatch, in order to benefit from their expertise when making a plan of action for a future viable network?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I assure my hon. Friend that we are in discussion with all the appropriate agencies. Postcomm and Postwatch have produced reports that are being studied as part of our exercise to arrive at a statement, which will be announced before Christmas. We have been in intensive discussions with Post Office Ltd. A number of Adjournment debates have taken place, especially over the past six months, in which right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their points of view. The Department has received a voluminous amount of correspondence, and national newspapers have run campaigns on the subject. The Prime Minister has established the Ministerial Committee on the Post Office Network, MISC 33, which has met several times. There have also been a number of bilateral meetings between the Secretary of State and other Cabinet Members, and between me and other Ministers. We have been working intensively to ensure that the outcome of the difficult decisions that we shall have to make shortly will not be a result of lack of effort or research.

Peter Luff: The Minister rightly observed that the Post Office faces changing commercial challenges as the market develops, but as the Trade and Industry Committee concluded in its recent report, the problem is that the Government have accelerated the process with their own policies, as identified by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). Will he reassure us that the proposals in the forthcoming statement will enable sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to enter into contracts with the Post Office so that they can compete by using their entrepreneurial flair in their own shops, and will also encourage the Post Office to produce a range of innovative products so that it can compete more effectively with the banking sector?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having omitted to say that the Select Committee, which he chairs so ably, has submitted a report to the Secretary of State, which we will also be considering. The Secretary of State's statement will refer to the ability of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to offer better services to their customers. There are conflicts in respect of their ability to perform some of the functions that they have requested, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the options are being considered, and that there will be a full opportunity for further consideration when the Secretary of State makes his statement.

Paddy Tipping: Is not some change inevitable, when 98 per cent. of new pensioners choose to take their pensions through the banks, and the 200 smallest post offices have fewer than 20 customers a week? Will the Minister ensure that maximum effort goes into maintaining as much of the post office network as possible?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend paints an accurate picture of the statistics showing the changing face of even the benefits business. Seventy-five per cent. of benefit recipients have bank accounts, and, as my hon. Friend says, 98 per cent. of new pensioners are choosing to have their benefits paid into a bank account. The way in which benefits are received is changing, but as I said earlier, at least 1 million people will still depend fully on the post office for their benefits. We know that we must provide for the most vulnerable, whether they are in the rural communities, the suburbs or deprived urban areas, and that will be a key consideration for the purposes of the Secretary of State's statement.

Edward Davey: When the Secretary of State eventually makes his statement, will he also explain why he wants to scrap Postwatch, the consumer watchdog that has helped to fight so many rural post office closures? Is it mere coincidence that Ministers are trying to muzzle an independent specialist watchdog and merge it with another body at the same time as proposing to cull rural post offices—or is it all part of the same plan?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I have experience of misquotations by the hon. Gentleman from our last meeting on a public platform, he will forgive me if I do not acknowledge the accuracy of what he has said. We are in the business of strengthening consumer protection, as will become plain in due course as the new arrangements are introduced.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in informing us in advance of his absence—but meanwhile, the Minister seems to be doing extremely well. Can he tell us how many post offices will close as a direct result of the withdrawal of the Post Office card account? Does he accept that a post office card account II that looks after only 1 million of the 4.5 million customers will not be enough to save many small post offices? Last week Postwatch said:
	"the government, the regulator and other relevant stakeholders need to form a common strategic view of what social outcomes are desired from the post office network".
	Will the Minister assure us that when the Government statement is made later this month, it will address ways in which post offices can work with carriers other than Royal Mail, and also Royal Mail's anti-competitive activity in poaching business from sub-post offices?

Jim Fitzpatrick: When the hon. Gentleman rises and makes such generous comments, I automatically smell a trap—but they were generous remarks, and I am grateful for them. He asked a very serious question, and he can, I think, be reassured that the Secretary of State's statement will cover all the elements that he referred to. I must correct an impression that I might have given: when I said that the Post Office card account successor will have to look after 1 million people, what I meant to say was that 1 million people will be dependent on it. There will be others who choose to continue with the POCA regardless of the fact that other products will give them better service—for example, because they will be able to get interest on the money left in the account, which is the situation for more than another 1 million people. The POCA will not be restricted only to the people whom I have mentioned; there will be a successor that people can make a decision on. Issues to do with competitiveness will be covered in the Secretary of State's statement.

Dennis Skinner: My question must be set against the background of the situation being difficult. In rural communities, such as my Bolsover constituency, which is 25 to 30 miles long, most rural post offices have survived—with help—but in some cases people do not want to run the post office because they cannot make a profit. We did things about that: one of the things we did was to manage to get one set up in the miners' welfare, and it is still there. When the Minister discusses great and grandiose plans, will he take into account the fact that imaginative ideas such as that should be continued with, because we can save quite a lot of post offices if people only put their minds to it?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Department of Trade and Industry, Royal Mail Group and Post Office Ltd have spent £25 million on pilots over 18 months, examining operations such as personal banking, virtual banking, mobiles and hosting operations, and they have been enormously successful. In fact, we have returned post office services to some communities that lost them years ago. The Post Office has to be imaginative. There will be an opportunity for communities to examine the Secretary of State's proposals and to see whether they fit with their profile, and for them to come up with their own ideas on how best to protect their network, which we want to make sure will be provided nationally. So the points made by my hon. Friend are very relevant to many communities.

Mailing Preference Service

Daniel Rogerson: What proposals his Department has to ensure that the Mailing Preference Service has greater powers to take action against offenders.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Mailing Preference Service is a voluntary response by the direct marketing industry to meet the concerns of consumers who do not wish to receive unsolicited mail. The number of complaints about the effectiveness of the Mailing Preference Service is small, and my Department has no proposals to introduce greater powers to take action against mailing companies that have failed to screen their customer listings effectively against the MPS, beyond those already possessed by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Daniel Rogerson: Every day, millions of people throughout this country receive unwanted letters, e-mails and telephone calls, many of which originate overseas. What action is the Department taking to combat that problem?

Jim Fitzpatrick: There are arrangements under the MPS for individuals to say that they do not want to receive such items of mail, and Royal Mail also operates an opt-out system. On the other hand, I must say that direct mailing works for many companies and organisations; it is a legitimate way to advertise products. Also, the revenue that Royal Mail gets from direct mailing helps to maintain the low cost of postage in this country. So there is a balance to be struck. For those who complain, there is a clear complaints procedure in place to allow them to have their complaints taken seriously. Last year there were 4,666 complaints, and up to November this year there were 4,000 complaints, but there are billions of pieces of direct mail, so we need to get the problem in perspective.

Nigel Evans: The credit card and financial industry seems to be one of the greatest users of junk mail. I am chairman of the all-party identity fraud group, and I am very concerned about the information sent out in junk mail relating to credit card application forms. Please will the Minister talk to the industry so that we can close down one area in which it seems that ID fraud is on the increase?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government take identity fraud very seriously, which is one reason why we are bringing forward our identity card proposal—about which I know that the hon. Gentleman is very supportive and sympathetic. We take such issues seriously. We are in discussions with the banks about the ability of individuals to get above their level of credit. We are also talking, via the Insolvency Service, to credit card companies. These are important issues and I know that the organisations that market such services take them seriously, but we always need to be vigilant.

Wind Farms

John Whittingdale: What account is taken of local opinion in the planning regime in relation to applications for wind farm development.

Malcolm Wicks: Power station applications in England and Wales of up to 50 MW capacity, including wind farms, are decided by the relevant local authority. Above that level on shore, applications are decided by the Secretary of State, who will take into account environmental impacts, other relevant matters and, of course, the views of the local community. That includes the views of the local planning authority, community groups and individuals.

John Whittingdale: I recognise the need to increase the amount of energy that we get from renewable sources, but does the Minister accept that there are many preferable alternatives to onshore wind farm development, and is he aware that the application to build 10 400 ft wind turbines at Bradwell-on-sea, in my constituency, is massively opposed by the local community and has been rejected by the local planning authority? If it is allowed to go ahead, it will spoil one of the most beautiful and historic areas of the country.

Malcolm Wicks: Obviously, it would not be for me to comment on a particular proposal or application, but there is a growing consensus in our society and in Parliament about the importance of renewable energy. Some 4 per cent. of our electricity now comes from renewables, and we want to see a fivefold increase to 2020. That does not mean that we should say yes to every application, but that we should look at local concerns very seriously before saying yes or no.

Geoffrey Robinson: My hon. Friend will recall from our last energy debate the importance that we all attach to renewables. If I may, I will reduce the scale just a little, down to individual domestic wind turbine installations. Come April or May of the new year, will such installations be permitted for individual houses without any planning regulation, on the same basis as television antennae, for example, which are already free of such restrictions? Will my hon. Friend enlighten me on that point? The first such proposed installation in Coventry—it happens to be in my constituency—has already become ensnared in impossible bureaucracy.

Malcolm Wicks: I suspect that I should declare an interest, Mr. Speaker, as someone who is awaiting a decision from Croydon council on my own application for a wind turbine. I understand that the Department for Communities and Local Government is reviewing the very issue that my hon. Friend raises. There is a body of opinion that thinks that, just as there is some easement regarding Sky satellite dishes, there should be some easement for this, in respect of local planning strictures.

Mark Lancaster: Wind farms are of course welcome, provided that they are in the right place. Back in May, the Minister acknowledged that there was an unfair bias toward wind under renewable obligations. Given that fact, does he agree with me that all too often, many current applications have more to do with availability of site than with sustainability of project?

Malcolm Wicks: I am not sure that I can agree with that. As I said, these issues need to be decided on a project-by-project basis. Various projects have come before the Secretary of State, including an important one at Whinnash, the answer to which, following an inquiry, we judged should be no. An equally controversial project was planned for Romney Marsh, which we thought should go ahead. However, we will not get very far if there is a wide body of consensus saying, "Yes, climate change is the big issue facing us, and yes, we need more renewable energy—but when it comes to my constituency, no, no, no." There has to be some moderation.

Alan Duncan: We were very sorry when the hon. Gentleman was moved from his post as Minister for Energy, but it seems today that we can welcome him straight back to his previous responsibilities. What are the Government's plans for publishing new legislation to govern the planning procedures for onshore and offshore wind? When do they expect to publish it, will it be separate from the energy White Paper expected in March, and what criteria does he think will be the most important in determining where these wind turbines will be permitted?

Malcolm Wicks: I should start by saying that there is widespread concern that, although we need to pay proper regard to local community concerns, it takes far too long to reach a decision on the energy infrastructure that we need, whether it be a wind farm or a new power station of whatever kind. We all understand that we need massive investment in energy infrastructure over the coming five, 10 or 15 years. The Government are therefore looking very seriously at those planning issues, so that we may achieve a better balance between local concerns and our energy security needs. That will be reflected in the White Paper that the Secretary of State has said will be published in March.

Consumer Credit

Robert Goodwill: What assessment he has made of the impact of interest rates for consumer credit on low income families.

Ian McCartney: The university of Bristol personal finance research centre recently looked at what the effect of the equivalent of an increase of 0.5 per cent. on interest rates would be on consumers. They found that an additional 1 per cent. of households would be expected to struggle financially as a result of such an increase. The Government are committed to ensuring access to affordable credit and have allocated £36 million from the financial inclusion fund to promote the growth of credit unions. We are also committed to ensuring that those in financial difficulty have access to free debt advice, and are giving £45 million to fund new advisers in areas of high financial exclusion.

Robert Goodwill: My constituent Mr. John Barrett of Scarborough was appalled to receive a letter offering him a loan of £7,500 at an annual percentage rate of 44.6 per cent. The suggestion was that he could use the money for a holiday. That generous rate is available only to those in full-time employment. Others, such as Farepak customers who may be on benefits or paid weekly, have to pay rates as high as 175 per cent. What more can be done to encourage credit unions, such as the one recently set up in Whitby, so that people can escape from the clutches of such predatory interest rates?

Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We have put £36 million into developing a national network of credit unions. In addition, we are insisting that the European directive, which will be produced soon, includes opportunities for growth in that sector. Without being too partisan, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Tories were in government, they provided not a single penny for the extension of that sector—

Peter Luff: Don't spoil it!

Ian McCartney: I am not spoiling it; that is a fact. The Tories cannot lecture us about issues that they did not deal with when they had the opportunity. I give an absolute assurance that we will continue the development of that sector when resources are available, and I hope that in doing so, we will receive the support of the Opposition, who have voted against it in the past.

Andy Reed: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making available that additional funding for credit unions. Will he use the opportunity of next year's 90th birthday of the Co-operative party—whose parliamentary group I chair—to promote the ideals of co-operation and mutuals, especially credit unions? For too long in England, credit unions have not been at the forefront of people's thinking on our estates, as they have in Scotland and the United States. Will my right hon. Friend use that opportunity to drive home the message that credit unions are the right way forward?

Ian McCartney: I am prepared to do that, and I will also have a meeting with the Co-op to see what else we can do. In areas where credit unions work, we have an endemic problem of illegal money lending. The Government have set up two pilot projects, in Scotland and the west midlands, which in recent months have secured significant prosecutions and taken out of the community a group of people who have been a scourge in it. It is important not only to assist credit unions, but to take other action to undermine the criminal element who prey on the most vulnerable.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's words about credit unions, but I agree with the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) about the need for more regulation of money lenders—because that is what the people who push glossy leaflets about loans with 100 per cent. interest rates through doors are. Should we consider tougher regulations in that area to protect the vulnerable?

Ian McCartney: Next year, the Government will bring forward a directive in respect of unfair activity in that area. We will do that in a non-partisan way —[ Laughter. ] I cannot win. A few minutes ago I was accused of being too partisan. Now I make an offer to be non-partisan and the Tories burst out laughing. They just flip-flop everywhere. I reassure my hon. Friend that I will work with the whole House to ensure that legitimate operators remain in the market, but that we will deal with those who are not legitimate.

Farepak

Tom Brake: When he expects to complete his investigation into the collapse of Farepak.

Ian McCartney: The speed of the investigation will be determined by the thoroughness of the investigators, who act independently of Ministers. The investigation is being carried out by the companies investigation branch under powers in section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. Reports of investigations under section 447 may not be published, nor may information about their findings be disclosed except to prosecutors and regulators named in the Act. There is a public interest reason for preserving the confidentiality of the investigation. Premature disclosure of information would prejudice any action that was merited, whether that involved prosecution, the disqualification of directors, or regulatory action.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response, although whether the inquiry will report before Christmas remains unclear, certainly to Farepak customers. Will he confirm that evidence of wrongdoing by directors will lead to criminal proceedings against them? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appears to have advocated a boycott of HBOS for its sad involvement in the affair. Does he support that?

Ian McCartney: As a politician, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make clever remarks. However, if he wants me to do the same in respect of HBOS, he must accept responsibility for the fact that that would mean that any culpability on HBOS' part found by the investigation could not be taken to court by the prosecutor. My job is not about taking sides; it is about ensuring that there is a proper investigation and action is taken if illegality is found. By all means let the hon. Gentleman seek a headline, but my job is better than that. My job is to seek the truth of the matter, and to take action if that is necessary. After all, the Government sent the investigation branch in within hours of Farepak's collapse. In normal circumstances, the investigation branch does not go into a collapsed company until after the administrator's investigation. The fact that the Government took the unprecedented step of sending the investigation branch in so soon, by agreement with the administrator, shows how seriously we take this matter. I hope that hon. Members realise that, and that clever off-the-cuff remarks are not helpful.

Anne Snelgrove: May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and his private office for setting up the family fund, and for their tireless work in seeking justice for the Farepak victims? Does he agree that an early conclusion to the investigation would help to pave the way for early regulation for the Christmas savings sector, so that similar difficulties never arise again?

Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend has played a tremendous role in this matter. The time scale does not allow me to make an oral statement today, but I will issue a written statement setting out the details of the fund as they stood at 7.30 this morning, and the arrangements for its distribution by 18 December.
	I hope that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give the House a flavour of my written statement. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) that the investigation will not be strung out, but I do not want it to conclude early as a result of pressure from politicians. I want a proper, full-scale, detailed and complex investigation that will involve many people and the inspection of large numbers of records. Indeed, we will have to reconstruct much of the company's record base, because we need a constructive approach to finding the money trail. The investigation will be completed as soon as possible, but to a time scale that is commensurate with determining the truth and the action that must be taken.
	As at 7.30 am today, more than £6.4 million had been placed in the fund, including more than £340,000 of public donations. Gift aid will contribute an additional £30,000. The resources are still being counted as I speak, and I assure the House that more money will be available later today. We have agreed in principle with the administrator that a large number of hampers, with a substantial market value, will be secured. We are in discussion with a logistics company and a large national retailer to determine whether the hampers can be distributed before 18 December.
	Help in kind is being provided by the Park group, Findel plc and others, with logistics for the distribution of vouchers. An estimated £500,000 of gift aid will ensure that administrative expenses do not eat up every pound that people have put into the fund. In addition, we have agreed with the administrator that he will go back to court to cover the period from 11 to 13 October for repayments in excess of £300,000, which we hope will be made by Christmas.
	Using the Consumer Credit Act 1974, we have secured—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the House, I must stop the Minister; there will be a written statement.

Robert Wilson: Does the Minister agree that compensation of 15p in the pound for Farepak customers is a national disgrace and will ruin many people's Christmas? In my constituency, people have lost more than £100,000 and because of the poor rate of compensation, the  Reading Chronicle has today launched a local appeal—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Robert Wilson: In the investigation, will the Minister look into how many Farepak customers use debit cards to pay their bills, as they may be entitled to full compensation?

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman does the exercise down; it is not a compensation scheme, but a good-will gesture. After three weeks, from a standing start, more than £12 million in one form or another will go to people before Christmas. No legislation covers debit cards, but Visa has given a commitment to refund debit cards, as well as credit cards, in full. I hope that others will do the same, as that will result in a considerable sum of money. Other factors are involved, as the hon. Gentleman will realise from my statement. The investigation is widespread and will look into all aspects of the company's collapse. More information will be available to the House at an appropriate time, but for now I think we should allow the investigators to continue their work. The priority between now and Christmas is to ensure that at least some people's Christmas can be saved. If we had not taken the initiative, nothing would have been saved.

James McGovern: The management of HBOS, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Farepak and European Home Retail have all come in for varying degrees of criticism throughout the crisis. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the senior managers of each of those organisations will be interviewed in the DTI investigation to give the House a full and clear picture of what actually happened?

Ian McCartney: Some of the managers of those companies and others involved with the banks and financial services that had a working relationship with Farepak have already co-operated fully and have made it clear that they will continue to do so, and I am pleased about that. Companies—financial services and others—that had financial dealings and arrangements with Farepak will be part of the investigation.

Alan Duncan: We had spotted the fact that there was to be a written statement and the House is grateful to the Minister for giving us the gist of what will be in it when it is published later. Quite apart from the specific issues of the investigation, which we must respect, many of us find astonishing the background principle that savers' deposits have been used to prop up a parent company as though they were cash flow from profits that would never need to be returned. What discussions has the Minister had about introducing immediate changes so that deferred purchase savings schemes such as Farepak are brought within the scope of the existing regulations that govern licensed deposits, so that in future vulnerable customers are protected and not abused as they have been in this case?

Ian McCartney: I take the hon. Gentleman's comments in the spirit in which they were made. I immediately had discussions with the Office of Fair Trading, which is now in discussion with the regulators on the point the hon. Gentleman raised and other matters. Within a reasonable period, I expect them to come forward with proposals for Ministers to consider. In addition, I have to ensure that when the investigation is complete any proposals meet the needs not only in this case but in other financial transactions of a similar nature. The House can rest assured that after this debacle I want to ensure that arrangements in the future meet the needs of consumers and the retail sector. I am very much in favour of co-operation in this matter; it is in all our interests that consumers are protected and that legitimate retail businesses can continue to operate effectively. When it is appropriate, I will put information in the public domain for consultation, and we shall take action on whatever proposals result, to ensure—we hope—that a Farepak case can never happen again.

Manufacturing Sector

Kali Mountford: What steps his Department is taking to raise the level of skills in the manufacturing sector.

Margaret Hodge: The Government are working with partners to improve skills levels across manufacturing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced approval of the new national skills academy for manufacturing, thus fulfilling yet another manifesto commitment. The academy will develop a genuinely employer-driven training opportunity, with training and education programmes that will set national standards for delivery, helping employers to raise skill levels and meet the demands of global competition.

Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am particularly pleased about the element that involves partnerships with employers to ensure standards. In the centre of vocational excellence—in which I am a member of the steering committee—that is how we operate. I have recently been able to give awards from modern apprenticeship level right the way through to leadership and management level. We need a degree standard level in technical textiles. Will she help me to ensure that the regional development agency, which has promised £2 million for studies on technical textiles at degree level at Leeds university, fulfils that promise by March next year?

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done in the textiles sector, arising from good provision in her constituency. The centres for vocational excellence ensure that provision exists. They are supply-side driven. We now have to ensure that the demand from manufacturers, employers and businesses matches that supply. I am happy to help her. I suggest that she should engage in discussions with the local learning and skills council, the supply agencies and the regional development agencies to ensure that the need in her constituency is met.

David Simpson: Last month, the deputy director of employment policy at the Engineering Employers Federation said:
	"increased protectionism would be a grave mistake".
	What is the Department doing to lower tariffs to help British manufacturing?

Margaret Hodge: One of the things that we could all do within the House is start talking up the success of British manufacturing. Too often people decry it; too infrequently they commend the very good record. For example, manufacturing output over recent times has been increasing consistently. The Government have a comprehensive strategy in place to support manufacturing across the piece. From investment in new technology and innovation, to the support that we give through our manufacturing advisory service, the contribution of regional development agencies, and the research and development tax credit—there is a plethora of support. That is contributing to the success of British manufacturing across the board. The hon. Gentleman would do well to join me in celebrating the success of British manufacturing.

Jim Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the restructuring of the Learning and Skills Council?

Margaret Hodge: Through the development of skills academies, we are trying to make sure that the qualifications and training courses that are offered meet the demands of manufacturing. It is crucial that the Learning and Skills Council works with employers, through the sector skills council arrangements, or the skills academies, or the regional development agencies, to bring together that demand for skills with an appropriate supply of skills. That is what the reforms are all about.

Jonathan Djanogly: I agree with the objectives to which the Minister referred, but I have just been told by an innovative British engineering company that it was not allowed to visit a local school to advertise its apprenticeships because that school did not wish to encourage its pupils to leave at 16. With 1.1 million manufacturing jobs having been lost since 1997, is it not the case that if we fail to ensure more joined-up thinking on skills and manufacturing, the only skills that will exist will be in China and India?

Margaret Hodge: I would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he gave me the details of that particular instance, because I agree that if we are to encourage more young people to work in enterprise, in the widest sense, we must ensure a far closer relationship between industry, enterprise and schools. I have often gone on record saying that that relationship has to start when children are quite young, because they make their subject choices at a very early age. They should be inspired, and the enormous excitement that can come from a career in manufacturing and enterprise must be made visible to them, so I would be grateful if he gave me that information. I say to him, again, that he should not talk down manufacturing. Manufacturing output is up, quarter on quarter, and in the last quarter it went up yet again. In the automotive industry, for example, we are producing as many cars today as we did at the height of car production in the 1970s. It was when his party was in government that car production declined, because that Government failed to see the importance of manufacturing and enterprise to the economy.

Tony Lloyd: Although I recognise why my right hon. Friend says that the national skills centre is employer-led, does she recognise that employers do not always have a good record of looking to the future and planning for skills needs? Will she make sure that there is an employee element, and employee guidance, too? In particular, will she ensure that trade unions have an important role in making sure that employees get the passportable skills that they need for the future of manufacturing?

Margaret Hodge: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government have done a lot to ensure that trade unions are closely involved with education in the workplace. I have visited many schemes in which trade unions play an extremely positive role in ensuring that employees obtain greater skills and more qualifications at the workplace. The work that we have done through the sector skills councils, and the academies that we are establishing, will bring employers together, and with that joint experience, employers can ensure that the training, qualifications and expertise developed are fit for purpose, so that we can increase productivity and provide sustainable jobs and economic growth.

Environmental Technologies

Mark Pritchard: What steps he has taken to incentivise small and medium-sized businesses to design and manufacture environmental technologies.

Margaret Hodge: The Government support the UK environmental industries sector, which has increased from £16 billion, employing 170,000 people in 2001, to £25 billion, employing 400,000 people in 2004. We have introduced a range of incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the commission on environmental markets and economic performance, announced by the Chancellor in response to the Stern report, will make further recommendations to ensure that the UK makes the most of the opportunities arising from the environmental challenges of the present and the future.

Mark Pritchard: As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, 1.1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1997. Many of those jobs were in my constituency in Shropshire, and in the west midlands. What specifically are the Government doing to encourage environmental technologies for the national good, so that a renaissance in British manufacturing can occur on the back of environmental technologies?

Margaret Hodge: I am rather tired of Opposition Members constantly proclaiming that jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry under this Government. If we look at the record, we see that this year up to September, we have lost 75,000 jobs because of increased productivity and new technology, not because of a reduction in manufacturing output. We should compare that with 1981, when we lost 673,000 jobs in one year alone, or with 1991, when we lost 422,000 jobs in one year alone. The record speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady has made her point. I call Mr. Bob Blizzard.

Energy Reserves

Bob Blizzard: What recent assessment he has made of the UK's remaining reserves of offshore oil and gas.

Malcolm Wicks: Our latest estimates in September show that at the end of 2005, commercially recoverable reserves of UK oil and gas amounted to between 7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil equivalent. In addition, it is estimated that between 4 billion and 18 billion barrels of oil equivalent could be found as a result of further exploration. My hon. Friend is a tireless and, indeed, giant champion of the industry, and he knows that while there is long-term decline, there nevertheless remains powerful potential for the future.

Bob Blizzard: I welcome my hon. Friend to the energy portfolio today, and I hope that I can do so again in future. Is not the most secure source of energy our own oil and gas and, as we have just learned, there is plenty left? Most of it is in small fields, yet operators have to use the consents procedure that was devised for the large, early discoveries. Will he look at how those procedures can be streamlined without compromising their integrity to facilitate the development of those fields by small companies and, at the same time, make sure that the Department of Trade and Industry retains responsibility for the matter?

Malcolm Wicks: I agree that as the fields mature, as exploration west of Shetland, for example, becomes more difficult, and as more smaller companies move in, we must constantly review procedures, including those for consents. Fortunately, our PILOT partnership with the industry is an effective vehicle for the Government—both the DTI and other parts of Government—and industry to discuss those very issues.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

Pensions

Bob Spink: What estimate she has made of the number of women who will be eligible for a full basic state pension under the Government's proposals.

Meg Munn: Measures in the Pensions Bill published yesterday mean that about three quarters of women reaching state pension age in 2010 will be entitled to the full basic state pension, compared with 50 per cent. without reform. More than 90 per cent. of women reaching state pension age in 2025 will achieve the full basic state pension.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. The Government's pensions proposals make a serious and decent attempt to tackle the developing problems in that area. Will she ensure that policy takes fully into account the great value of the necessary home building and child care activities in which women are involved, and not just their national insurance record? Women should have fair access to the full basic state pension as soon as possible.

Meg Munn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the proposals, as cross-party support is important in ensuring that people are confident that we are making long-term changes that will make a difference. I agree entirely with him. The Equal Opportunities Commission said that the Bill
	"is an important step towards ending the scandalous inequalities...The unpaid contribution to society made by millions of parents and carers will finally be recognised and rewarded on the same terms as paid employment."

Anne Begg: There is no doubt that there was inherent discrimination in the pensions system, given the unfairness of someone's sex determining whether they qualified for a state pension. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the problem, and have taken action in the Pensions Bill, which was published yesterday. Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Government will not renege on any of the promises they have made to women, and that they will continue to make sure that the gap between pension provision for women and men is closed as quickly as possible?

Meg Munn: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend on the issue. The Bill aims to deliver equality. As she will know, we will introduce a gender equality duty in April, which will apply to all Government Departments and public sector organisations, bearing in mind the effect of their policies on men and women. I congratulate the Department for Work and Pensions on its gender impact assessment, as it is exactly what we need to ensure that our policies deliver what she asked for.

Lorely Burt: The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that, whereas at present only 30 per cent. of women are entitled to a full state pension, by the Government's estimates that will rise to 70 per cent. by 2010. Of the remaining 30 per cent. who will never qualify under the 30-year rule, will the Government re-examine the contribution regulations to enable women who are working on past their current retirement age of 60 to continue to make national insurance contributions, so that they can get a better pension when they eventually retire?

Meg Munn: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. The Bill has just been published and there will be an opportunity to explore some of those issues in depth. Our policy has always been to try to make up the disadvantage that women feel and, as the hon. Lady knows, two thirds of the pension credit goes to women. We will welcome all constructive contributions to the debate.

Diana Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that pensions are often a complicated matter, and that full information and explanations are required at the earliest stage, especially to young women, about the pension consequences of actions that they take during their lifetime? Will the Government ensure that adequate publicity and information are provided?

Meg Munn: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are considering putting together some sort of guide that will answer precisely such questions. She is right. Simplicity will make it easier for women to be confident that they will get a pension, and that they can save and add to it. A great deal has been done to get rid of some of the complexities in the current pension system.

Maria Miller: What recent steps the Government have taken to encourage women to make private pension provision.

Meg Munn: We remain committed to providing people with information to support retirement planning. Measures in the Pensions Bill set out our proposals to establish an organisation to deliver personal accounts and private saving. We estimate that around 2.2 million to 3.4 million women will open personal accounts. The Government will publish a White Paper on personal accounts shortly.

Maria Miller: As the Minister is aware, under the Government's proposals, women on low pay would be automatically enrolled into personal accounts, yet when it comes to retirement the level of income from that saving could be completely negated by means-tested pension credit. What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that women on low earnings benefit from the new scheme?

Meg Munn: The hon. Lady raises important points, which we are examining in detail. One of the benefits of our proposals is to link the pension again to earnings. That means there will be higher rates of basic state pension, which will lift more women out of that situation. We need to continue to examine the effects on all women as the proposals go through.

David Taylor: Private pension provision is often associated with self-employment. I recall from my years of acting as an accountant for small businesses in the textile industry that women in particular were less likely to make private pension provision. What does my hon. Friend think are the key barriers that prevent such take-up and what steps are being taken to surmount them?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter. One of the key barriers is people's understanding of the pensions system and of the implications for them in retirement, so providing clear information, along with a simpler system that enables more women to qualify for a full basic state pension, will assist the process.

Julie Kirkbride: As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) points out, the Minister must be worried about the quality of advice that she is offering. If women are, as statistics show, on relatively low earnings, it cannot make financial sense for them to save towards a private pension when the minimum income guarantee that the Government offer goes up by earnings every year, and not by inflation. Is she not worried that many such women will be angry when they reach retirement? They will have saved for a private pension that is swallowed up in benefits forgone.

Meg Munn: These are important issues, but we want women to understand what pension they will get when they retire. In addition, we are doing a great deal to tackle the gender pay gap, which is the reason that so many women are poorly paid now. We want better paid part-time jobs, which means that they will be better able to save for retirement.

Human Trafficking

Philip Hollobone: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office on combating the trafficking of women into the United Kingdom for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

Ruth Kelly: The inter-ministerial group on human trafficking co-ordinates work on this issue across Government. The Government introduced new offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 under which there have been 30 convictions for trafficking. The UK action plan on trafficking will be launched in the spring and will make proposals that should improve prevention, investigation and prosecution of traffickers, as well as protection and support for victims.

Philip Hollobone: In the week when Her Majesty's Government, instead of apologising for Britain's role in the international slave trade, should have been celebrating this country's lead in abolishing it, will the Minister take another lead in confirming to the House that the Government will soon sign the European convention against trafficking in human beings so that that evil trade can be brought to an end?

Ruth Kelly: Most Members of this House will think that it was right for the Prime Minister to express his deep sorrow about this country's role in the slave trade. Of course, on the occasion of the bicentenary we will celebrate the UK's achievement in having been at the forefront of abolishing this evil trade. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that while we recognise that 200-year history, we should face up to the new challenges that confront us in today's world and not ignore the many hundreds—indeed, thousands—of people who have become victims of human trafficking. He is right, too, to draw attention to the importance of the European convention, the aims of which we support in their entirety. As he says, we have been at the forefront of efforts in this area, and we are considering whether we should sign the convention. We agree with all its aims in principle, but there are certain aspects that we need to ensure would not affect our ability to secure our borders.

Andy Reed: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that in 2007 we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery. However, we need to move forward, because every constituency is probably affected by the current slave trade of sex trafficking—I know that it has happened in my constituency. Will she clarify, perhaps not now but in writing to hon. Members, the technical reasons for not signing the declaration at this stage? The failure to do so sends out the wrong signal at a very important time in our history, and I hope that we can overcome the problems and sign it as quickly as possible.

Ruth Kelly: I share my hon. Friend's hopes that we will be able to sign the convention. There are no time limits, and it is right that we should take our time to consider the issues properly. For example, the convention contains provision for an automatic period of reflection or recovery for the victims of human traffickers, yet in practice we tend to exceed those limits. We want to reflect carefully on the experiences of other countries to ensure that we retain our ability to secure our borders.

Peter Tapsell: When are we going to get a prime ministerial apology for King Henry VIII's disgraceful treatment of his wives?

Ruth Kelly: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point in his own way. I believe that the majority of people in this country think that it was right utterly to condemn the history of our involvement in the slave trade and to express our deep sorrow about it. That will resonate with most people, who see the bicentenary of its abolition as a huge milestone.

Eleanor Laing: I welcome the progress that Ministers have made on matters where they have some power as regards trafficking and modern slavery. However, much more needs to be done to help the thousands of women and girls who are victims of trafficking and are being held in conditions of near slavery and forced to work as prostitutes right now in Britain.
	Today, my hon. Friends and I are launching a campaign to try to publicise the help that is available, but what is needed is a national telephone helpline. Will the Minister note the cross-party support for early-day motion 282, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and will she take steps to set up a much-needed helpline?

Ruth Kelly: I welcome the hon. Lady's support for the measures that the Government are taking to prevent human trafficking of any kind and to protect victims. I hope that she will welcome the contribution that we have made, not only through legislation but through direct support for victims through the Poppy project, which offers them important support by providing sheltered housing and reaching out to people affected in the community. Of course there is more that we can do. In the spring, the Home Office, which has been consulting on those programmes, will publish an action plan. We will consider how that can be developed and how the UK's human trafficking centre, which was set up in October—it is the first of its kind in Europe—can be used effectively to gather intelligence. I hope that she will support that.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the coming weeks?

Jack Straw: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
	Tuesday 5 December—Opposition day [1st Allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government failures on Public Health", followed by a debate entitled "Failure of Government Transport Strategy and Mounting Capacity Crisis on British Roads and Railways". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 6 December—A debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 7 December—Estimates [1st Allotted day]. There will be a debate on the provision of affordable housing followed by a debate on occupational pensions.
	Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 8 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 11 December will be:
	Monday 11 december—Second Reading of the Offender Management Bill, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
	Tuesday 12 December—Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill.
	Wednesday 13 December—Second Reading of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Thursday 14 December—A debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 15 December—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 14 December and 11 January will be:
	Thursday 14 December—A debate on changes in medical and clinical practice.
	Thursday 11 January—A debate on the future of legal aid.
	The information is as follows:
	 Communities and Local Government: in so far as it relates to the provision of affordable housing (Third Report of the Communities and Local Government Committee entitled "Affordability and the Supply of Housing", Session 2005-06, (HC703-11).
	 Work and Pensions: In so far as it relates to assistance for those who have lost their occupational pensions. (Sixth Report of Public Administration Committee entitled The Ombudsman in Question: The Ombudsman's Report on Pensions and its Constitutional Implications", Session 2005-06, (HC1081).

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business.
	Can we have an urgent statement from the Defence Secretary on the complete mess made by the Ministry of Defence of payments to Royal Marines serving in Afghanistan? I know that the Defence Secretary is making a statement on the NATO summit today, but we need an explanation of why personnel were led to believe that they would receive extra money only to have it clawed back, which will have a major impact on the morale of serving troops in a very difficult and dangerous theatre.
	Can we also have an oral statement next week from the Home Secretary on the riot at Harmondsworth and problems in the Prison Service? A written statement has been tabled today, but written statements should not be used by Ministers to avoid having to come before the House to answer questions from Members. One third of the detainees at Harmondsworth were foreign national prisoners awaiting deportation and another 150 illegal immigrants may now be released from other prisons to make room for detainees from Harmondsworth. There was another incident overnight at the Lindholme detention centre. The former chief inspector of prisons, the noble Lord Ramsbotham, has said that the result of all the upheaval in the Home Office
	"over the past decade is we have a prison service left in a state of shambles."
	The Home Secretary should make a statement to the House so that hon. Members can call him to account.
	Talking of statements to the House, why is the NATO summit statement later today being made by the Defence Secretary, not the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister has made every statement to the House on NATO summits since 1997—in 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2004. Why is he not here today, or was the summit just too embarrassing for him?
	The Leader of the House will have just heard in women's questions a reference to early-day motion 282 on human trafficking, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).
	 [That this House notes that 25th November is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women; further notes the newly published report of the End Violence Against Women campaign, which concludes that the Government is not doing enough to combat the many and varied types of violence suffered by women; notes in particular that thousands of women who are victims of trafficking and organised crime are being forced to work as prostitutes; commends the work of the many charitable organisations providing help to women who are victims of violence; and calls on the Government to take immediate steps to raise public awareness of the problem and of the help and support which is available to victims.]
	There are estimated to be 8,500 trafficked prostitutes in London alone, charging £15 a time for sex, each earning their pimps £100,000 a year. That is horrific, but it is happening in the UK in the 21st century. It is a new form of slavery. We need to raise awareness of the problem and of the help available to those caught up in this terrible trade, so can we have a debate on sex trafficking?
	The Leader of the House will know that the Department of Trade and Industry is investigating the collapse of MG Rover. We learned this week that the Phoenix four, the former owners of MG Rover, are going to benefit from a tax rebate of £16 million. Can we have a statement from the Trade and Industry Secretary, and should not the tax rebate be withheld until the investigation is complete?
	I have raised the issue of back garden development before. The position is simple: Government targets mean that back gardens are being built on and that family homes are being demolished to make way for flats. What is more, the Government are refusing housing and planning delivery grant to those councils that do not encourage building on brownfield sites—that is, on back gardens. Yet, this week, the housing Minister published planning policy statement 3, which states:
	"Particularly where family housing is proposed, it will be important to ensure that the needs of children are taken into account and that there is good provision of recreational areas, including private gardens".
	Is it not crazy that the Government encourage councils to build on back gardens while at the same time telling them to keep them? I do not know about "no joined-up government"; this does not even seem to be a joined-up Minister. Can we have a statement from the housing Minister on this?
	With the housing Minister giving mixed messages, the Ministry of Defence messing up forces pay and the Prison Service in a state of shambles, this is truly a divided and paralysed Government.

Jack Straw: On payments to the Royal Marines, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is of course concerned about these reports and I will communicate to him what the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has said. I know that he will be making a statement, either oral or written.
	Of course, what has happened at Harmondsworth is serious. Such things can happen under any Government, however, as the right hon. Lady and her colleagues will know. It is extremely important that detainees and offenders do not get the message that if they riot and cause destruction in these institutions, particular attention will be paid to them. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is never slow to come forward with statements—he is already making one today—and he has tabled a written ministerial statement on this issue. He and I will bear in mind what the right hon. Lady has said when deciding whether there should be an oral statement early next week.
	The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the NATO summit. The House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement in the House on the White Paper on the future of the Trident missile system on Monday. It is entirely appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who was present at the NATO summit with the Prime Minister, should make the statement following the summit.
	We all share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) in early-day motion 282 on the importance of action to deal with sex trafficking.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead invited me to comment on those who appear to be profiting from the collapse of MG Rover. Of course, we all share her concern about this, but I do not want to comment in any more detail until the inquiry into the collapse has determined who should bear responsibility. I will, however, ensure that her proposal is passed on that the money should not be paid to the directors until the inquiry has been completed.
	The right hon. Lady talked about back garden development. I listen to her from time to time during these sessions, and I see a new world that she is presenting for her constituents and for those in the Conservative party. In that new world, there are no difficult decisions for the Government to make, and the moment there is a Conservative Government—should that horrific time ever arrive—there would be no pressure on building land in Maidenhead or anywhere else in the south-east. All would be hunky-dory. It is not fair on the electors to take them for a ride in that way. As she and every other Opposition Member who represents a constituency in the south-east knows, there is pressure on housing land, especially in the south-east. In some respects, we want people to move out to other places—the north-west, for example—but with the changes in family formation, including the increase in small families, there is a need for small dwellings as well as large ones. It is far better to use brownfield land—including, in some cases, large back gardens—than to use greenfield land. I take it from what the right hon. Lady says that she would abandon the use of brownfield land and move instead to ensuring that vast swathes of green belt were used for building. That would be the consequence of what she is saying.

Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent debate on the state of manufacturing in the United Kingdom following the decision by GE to close its lighting factory in Leicester, which has been in existence for 60 years, putting at risk almost 400 jobs? The proposal is to move the work to Hungary. This important issue is relevant not just to Leicester, but to other constituencies about which decisions are made by people thousands of miles away that will have profound consequences for the local economy.

Jack Straw: I hope that my right hon. Friend is able to raise that matter and take one of the many opportunities for debate on it. Of course, we understand and share his concern, and I know that the manufacturing advisory service and other Department of Trade and Industry agencies are already seeking to help those who have been affected by the announcement.

David Heath: May I endorse the request for a statement on the position of the Royal Marines, many of whom I had the privilege of meeting as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme? They are the best of the best, and they do not deserve to be treated in this shameful way.
	May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the information, which emerged obliquely last week, that the anticipated increase in the number of police community support officers will be cut from 24,000 to 16,000? In my police authority area, Avon and Somerset, that means a reduction from the planned 541 to 346. That is a difficult adjustment to make late in the budgetary process. May we have a statement on the reasons for that change and an opportunity to question the Home Secretary?
	I note that we are to have a debate on fisheries. Will we ever have another debate, in Government time, on agriculture? According to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures, we are losing one dairy farm every day. That is a scandalous position for this country to be in. We might also consider the position of small abattoirs, which face further full-cost recovery on inspection charges. That means that even more of them will be lost.
	On a not unrelated matter, given the chaos in DEFRA, may we have a debate on the effects of cuts in British Waterways funding? People who use our waterways are not given to demonstrating, but the Leader of the House may have noticed that people in narrow boats are demonstrating up and down the country over the effects of those cuts on British Waterways. May we have an opportunity to discuss them?
	Lastly, next week, we face the first Bill—the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill—being considered by that new creation, the Public Bill Committee. Will any guidance be issued on the taking of evidence by Public Bill Committees? What is to be done in terms of written and oral evidence, and is there any provision for the Bills starting their consideration in another place also to benefit from evidential sessions?

Jack Straw: On the planned number of community support officers, some adjustments were made to CSO numbers, but since 1997 the hon. Gentleman's own police force area has had 400 extra police officers and 154 CSOs—a very big increase in the forces available to fight for better law and order.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned fisheries. There was indeed an opportunity to discuss aspects of agriculture, which is what he asked about, during last week's debates on the Queen's Speech, but we will of course bear in mind his suggestion for a debate in Government time on agriculture.
	On waterways, on Wednesday 6 December in Westminster Hall there will be a 90-minute debate about the impact of grant reduction on the work of British Waterways.
	On guidance in respect of evidence-taking sessions under the new Public Bill arrangements, which the House agreed on 2 November, the arrangements for the equivalent of Special Standing Committees do not and will not come into force until 1 January. That was part of the decision made by the House to give the House authorities and Members on both sides time to get used to the arrangements and for there to be guidance laid down. While the name of the Committee has changed, that Committee will proceed under the old arrangements rather than the new.

Jim Devine: On 12 September, the directors of Farepak wrote to hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working families telling them that they had until 6 October to pay up. Seven days before, the company went into liquidation. We now know that Halifax Bank of Scotland walked away with more than £30 million of that money. We also know that it made a donation of nearly £2 million, £1.6 million of which was bank charges that it got from Farepak. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that compassionate, caring institutions and individuals, including Government, local authorities and health authorities, reviewed their relationship with Halifax Bank of Scotland, with a view to withdrawing from it?

Jack Straw: Of course, I understand greatly my hon. Friend's concern, and I express yet again my appreciation and that of the House for the way in which he has fought for those who lost so much money, both as customers and employees of Farepak. He will understand that I cannot comment on the conduct of particular financial institutions, pending the outcome of the inquiry that is taking place. We accept, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade accepts, that the Government have responsibilities. The House may wish to know that the Government will be meeting Farepak employees' entitlement to statutory redundancy pay and any arrears of pay, holiday pay and money in lieu of notice within the statutory limits.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, confirmed last night that she was prepared to meet me to discuss problems relating to magistrates courts in Macclesfield. I am grateful to her for that, and we shall meet before Christmas. It appears that the problems that we are encountering, which may be not untypical of other parts of the country, are caused by the underfunding of the Crown Prosecution Service and its inability to service the various courts, particularly in Cheshire and perhaps elsewhere. May we have a statement from the appropriate Minister and, if not, a debate in this place about the funding of the Crown Prosecution Service and the need to ensure the continuation of local justice in this country?

Jack Straw: I do not have detailed figures with me, but I know for certain that Crown Prosecution Service funding has increased substantially, and that its performance has improved considerably, with more offences prosecuted and offenders brought to justice. Under any Government, there will be changes in the configuration of courts, for example, and I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.

Nick Palmer: The Leader of the House will be aware that many Members are concerned that adjustments in minimum targets for community support officers do not interfere with delivery of our commitment to neighbourhood policing. On another subject, does he agree that the deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire's proposal to divert heroin supply from drug dealers to general practitioners, to take heroin addicts out of the criminal orbit, deserves a serious debate? Bearing in mind the favourable Swiss experience, constituents who have talked to me are extremely positive about the proposal, although I also have colleagues who are more sceptical. The question needs and deserves a serious debate.

Jack Straw: On the issue of the police grant, my hon. Friend's area as a whole will receive a 5.1 per cent. increase in formula grant. As he knows, the numbers of police officers have increased significantly, along with appointments of community support officers, since we came to office. I agree that the treatment of those seriously addicted to drugs requires considerable debate. He will be aware that, in practice, the system being recommended by Nottinghamshire's deputy chief constable existed in this country until about 1970, and was then changed. However, we must always search for new ways of dealing with such an intractable problem.

Philip Davies: Can we have a debate on the fitting of explosive suppressant foam on the Hercules fleet? Despite the armed forces' requesting that five years ago, the Secretary of State for Defence has confirmed that only two of the fleet have been fitted. As a consequence, Flight Lieutenant Stead, whose parents live in my constituency, died when his Hercules was shot down. Given that this nanny state Government are always passing laws to protect us from ourselves, can we get them to protect our armed forces, who are putting their lives at risk serving our country?

Jack Straw: First, let me pay tribute to the crews of the Hercules fleet, with whom I have flown on many occasions into Iraq and Afghanistan. They are people of astonishing skill and bravery. Secondly, I will follow up the hon. Gentleman's point and write to him. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has the safety of service personnel as his highest priority.

George Mudie: I recently met a number of constituents who were in their late 70s and fairly frail, but who were being denied the home help service. I thought that that was a Leeds phenomenon, but the Leader of the House will know that, today, the Commission for Social Care Inspection reported that 100 out of 150 local authority providers are depriving the frail and vulnerable by supplying the home help service only to those with serious and critical illness. Does the Leader of the House share my dismay at the ending of home help service to ordinary, frail, vulnerable people? If so, will he draw it to the attention of his Cabinet colleague responsible, and provide some time in the Chamber for a public debate?

Jack Straw: I will, of course, draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I have examined this matter with some care. Local authorities are concentrating their increased resources more on those in greatest need, and therefore less on those in what is judged as lesser need. As for having a debate, as my hon. Friend knows, there are many opportunities to raise such matters on the Adjournment, either here or in Westminster Hall.

Roger Gale: The head of the Home Office's immigration and nationality directorate, Lin Homer, has been used as a ministerial body shield in the past. She cannot be held responsible, however, for the lack of provision of accommodation for failed asylum seekers and others. The prison system is in chaos. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to hide behind a written statement. When will he come to the House, and when will we have a debate on the issue?

Jack Straw: It is palpable nonsense to accuse the current Home Secretary of hiding behind anyone else. He is always delighted to be in the House— [Interruption.] He will be in the House in about 20 minutes, making a statement on something else. I am sorry to say that it was also my experience as Home Secretary that so many things can happen in the Home Office, sometimes on the same day, that there is an embarrassment of choice as to which difficulty must be dealt with in an oral statement, and which must wait. That situation has faced my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and it would even face a Conservative Home Secretary should such a situation ever arise.

Mark Lazarowicz: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 195, on the UK's Antarctic heritage?
	 [That this House notes that it will shortly will be the centenary of the Antarctic expeditions led by Sir Ernest Shackleton and Captain Robert Falcon Scott; believes that it would be an appropriate recognition of the achievements of the expeditions for the huts and artefacts used by the expedition on Ross Island, Antarctica, to be conserved for future generations; notes, however, that although funds have been secured to conserve Shackleton's hut and artefacts, insufficient funds are available for the conservation of Scott's hut and its artefacts at Cape Evans; and urges the Government to recognise the achievements and significance of Scott's heroic expedition by ensuring sufficient funding is made available for the conservation of his hut and its artefacts.]
	As it is almost a century since the expeditions of Shackleton and Scott, will he ask his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to consider ways of supporting the conservation of artefacts from the expeditions in Antarctica in the same generous way as the New Zealand Government are providing support?

Jack Straw: I will certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I understand that part of the problem is that the Heritage Lottery Fund cannot be used, as the artefacts are overseas. I will follow the matter up and see what can be done.

Michael Jack: It is proper that the Serious Fraud Office should investigate fraud and misdoing in business. Its current inquiry into BAE Systems, however, has been going on for a very long time. As the Leader of the House will know from aerospace workers in his constituency, that is now causing a great deal of concern, as it appears that the current inquiry is impacting on important negotiations for the sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons to the Saudi Arabian Government. May we have a statement next week from the Attorney-General indicating whether he is willing to put more resources into that inquiry to bring it to a conclusion and therefore to stop it gumming up the works of such important discussions?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman and I share a constituency interest in this matter. I applaud the way in which he has represented the interests of the British aerospace industry, generally and today. He will, however, appreciate that I cannot comment on a continuing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, other than to say that I will pass his remarks to my right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General.

Paul Flynn: May we debate early-day motion 319?
	 [That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its courageous reforms of the licensing laws enacted despite widespread hostility from opposition parties, the public and press; welcomes the halving of drugs deaths since 2001 following the Portuguese government's courageous decision to depenalise drugs against similar opposition; regrets that illegal drug use, crime and deaths persist at high levels in the United Kingdom; recognises the waste and futility of using the criminal justice system against drug addicts; and urges the Government to summon up the courage to challenge popular prejudice and adapt health solutions that have reduced drugs harm elsewhere.]
	The motion congratulates the Government on their courage in introducing—in the face of almost total opposition from the press, public and Opposition parties—a licensing law that has proved very successful.
	Before 1971 there were fewer than 1,000 addicts, virtually no drugs deaths and no drug crime. Now we have 280,000 addicts, and the highest rates of drug crime and drug deaths on our continent. Is it not time for the Government to summon up a little more courage, do the unpopular thing, and concentrate on drug policies that work rather than continuing with harsh prohibition?

Jack Straw: A debate in which my hon. Friend could offer the Government further congratulations on their achievement would be cause for high celebration. I hope to arrange it as soon as possible, and hold him to his word.
	As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) earlier, I believe that we should take account of experience, including experience of other countries. Certainly there is no perfect way of dealing with the very difficult problem of serious drug addiction.

Gregory Campbell: The Leader of the House may be aware of early-day motion 238, which stands in my name.
	 [That this House notes that about 80,000 endowment policies are sold each year in the United Kingdom; acknowledges that there is a general recognition that while these policies provided a useful repayment vehicle for paying off mortgages when interest rates and stock market returns were much higher, this has not been the case for some time; and calls upon the financial services industry to undertake a fundamental re-assessment of the commission basis on which many of these products are sold in order to protect home owners who have depended on policy proceeds to redeem their mortgages.]
	The motion draws attention to the fact that, year on year, about 80,000 endowment policies are still being sold in the United Kingdom. The primary purpose of endowment policies was supposed to be the repayment of mortgages, but they are clearly unsuitable for that purpose now. When may we have a debate to pressurise financial service providers to sell policies that are not driven solely by commission?

Jack Straw: There will be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to make his point. The difference between then and now is that the market is now much more regulated, and commission must be declared to the potential policyholder. It is also true that endowment policies have not always been sold to, and are not only useful to, those obtaining mortgages.

Tony Lloyd: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 360?
	 [That this House is appalled that while the City of London booms most cleaners there receive no sick pay, no pension, only the legal minimum holiday allowance, earn as little as 5.35 per hour and many take two jobs to make ends meet; commends the courageous campaign by cleaners in the City to secure a living wage; welcomes this campaign's extension to other major cities; believes that the cleaners' endeavours will lead to a real improvement in their treatment; notes that a living wage is about more than hourly pay but includes sick and holiday pay and pensions; contrasts the shocking gulf between the estimated 8.8 billion paid out in City bonuses this year with the poverty-pay cleaners must survive on in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world; recognises that global companies make significant profits by operating out of London and requests that they therefore behave responsibly towards their most vulnerable workers; is extremely concerned that progress towards a living wage is being impeded by the intransigence of the City's major banks and law firms' refusal to recognise the cleaners' trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, and allow them to negotiate on behalf of the cleaners; and calls upon companies such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, CitiBank, Lehman Brothers, Nomura and Lovells to instruct their contract cleaners, including ISS, Lancaster and Initial, to settle with the Transport and General Workers Union on a living wage, holiday pay, pension, sick pay and union representation.]
	The motion concerns living wages for cleaners, and the dispute with London merchant banks such as Goldman Sachs. According to the Transport and General Workers Union, a Christmas dinner for a typical family of four costing £14 per head—which is quite expensive—would take a cleaner a full day's work to earn, while it would take a director of one of the banks less than 90 seconds, although it might take a little longer to earn the champagne. Is it not time the dispute was brought to an end, and cleaners were given a proper living wage?

Jack Straw: I hope very much that the dispute is indeed brought to an end. My hon. Friend has reminded those involved of one of our many major achievements, the introduction of a living minimum wage.

John Butterfill: The Leader of the House will be aware that blind people are currently excluded from the higher-rate mobility component of disability living allowance. It is extremely difficult for them to use buses, trains and the underground unless they are accompanied, so they are forced to use taxis and private hire vehicles, which are far more expensive. The problem is highlighted in early-day motion 46, which stands in my name.
	 [That this House expresses its concern that blind people are excluded from claiming the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance; believes that blindness should be regarded as an impairment that has a severe impact on a person's independent mobility; notes the substantial extra costs that blind people have to pay to travel by taxi and private hire vehicle; and therefore calls on the Government to reconsider eligibility criteria which exclude blind people from being able to claim this important extra-cost benefit.]
	The Leader of the House will also be aware that a mass lobby of the House by the blind is proposed for 4 December. Will he find an early opportunity for us to debate the issue?

Jack Straw: I am certainly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will convey his concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The hon. Gentleman will, however, understand that judgments must be made about the criteria for payment of the higher-rate component, and also about the use of resources.

John Mann: An article in a back issue of  The Political Quarterly, available in the Library, describes in precise detail how patrons' clubs are being used to raise funds, employing the dining facilities of the House. As a number of Members have kindly put details of the cost of joining such clubs and the profit margins on their websites, and as the practice is forbidden by the House, is it not time we had a full debate enabling us to learn all the facts, such as who precisely are using patrons' clubs—and other such clubs—every day, including today, to raise funds for the Conservative party?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who chairs the Standards and Privileges Committee, is present. I know that he would be delighted to receive details of that alleged breach of the rules from my hon. Friend, or from any other Members.

Nigel Evans: May we have a debate on the arts? It will not be a very happy new year for them, because on 7 January 2007 the Theatre museum in Covent Garden will close its doors. It has one of the largest collections in the world, dating back to the 16th century. A debate would give the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport an opportunity to tell us that if the decision cannot be reversed, at least this wonderful collection could be put on display so that it can be seen by people not only from London, but from all over the world.

Jack Straw: Subject only to time, I should be delighted to arrange a debate on the arts to demonstrate our support for museums; but the hon. Gentleman, who is a constituency neighbour of mine, can do better than that. He is trying to insinuate that all is dire when it comes to museums, but he will know that our record in museum attendance and funding has been astonishing—not least because we broke with the Conservative policy of charging for entry. Entry is now free, and there has been a huge increase in investment. As a result, museum patronage has increased.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's specific point, if he gives me the details I will follow them up.

Gordon Prentice: May we have a statement on ministerial training? I understand that the first ever training course for junior Ministers was held at the National School of Government in Sunningdale only recently. Given all the controversy about the management of the Home Office and other Departments, it would be nice to be told how people are getting on.

Jack Straw: I think that the success of the training is perfectly obvious. If the hon. Gentleman is pitching for a role as a tutor to keep Ministers on their toes, I will ensure that his offer is passed on.

George Young: The Leader of the House will know that on the advice of one of his predecessors we changed our Standing Orders, and are now obliged to set up a Standing Committee on the English Regions. He will also know that, 18 months into the current Parliament, the Government have failed to provide such a Committee. As we appear to be doing perfectly well without it, will he change the Standing Orders back to how they were?

Jack Straw: That is an interesting idea. It requires further consideration, and I will give it.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend is, I hope, aware of the Bill being introduced in the other place by Lord Dubs to ban cluster munitions. A useful debate was held here last Monday on an Adjournment motion, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). I am pleased to learn that the Government intend to support the ban on dumb cluster munitions, but, following the Government's wonderful leadership on landmines, is it not about time we also banned cluster munitions? Would it be possible to bring the Bill here from the Lords, as a matter of urgency?

Jack Straw: I cannot promise that we can bring the Bill here quickly, but I can promise that I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the views expressed so eloquently by my hon. Friend, and then contact him again.

Pete Wishart: May I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House a happy St. Andrew's day? Last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on further constitutional change. Since then, we have found that there is majority support not only for Scottish independence but for English independence. Therefore, may I urge the Leader of the House not to arrange such a debate, and to continue to do absolutely nothing about the West Lothian question because everything is working out spectacularly well?

Jack Straw: On a matter on which we can all agree, I return the compliment and wish the hon. Gentleman and all his friends a happy St. Andrew's day. On the wider issue, I commend to the House a brilliant article by Mr. David Aaronovitch that tore apart the position of the Scottish National party. He wrote about the SNP inhabiting a parallel world in which it pretends both everything to every person and that there will be no difficult choices to be made if that dreadful event befalls Scotland and it goes independent. If it does go independent, that will be a bad day for Scotland, as well as for the other nations in the United Kingdom.

James McGovern: The Leader of House will be aware of concerns expressed recently by the TUC that interns were being exploited by some Members of this House who paid them nothing but expected them to work full-time hours. May we have a debate on that to ensure that we are not setting a bad example to industry by failing to practise what we preach with regard to workers' terms and conditions?

Jack Straw: I am not totally sympathetic to that. I used to have interns working for me, and as I had no money to pay them the arrangement was that while they were working for me they were supported by their university or their parents. They benefited from that and so did everybody else. I usually do my best to agree with colleagues, but in this instance I cannot agree. I think that there is a real role for internship. We should not exploit interns but, for example, I provide work experience in my constituency, and I would like to pay everybody who comes through my door—

John Bercow: They pay you!

Jack Straw: The queue is so long that I could run a bidding system, but I am so charitable that I do not do that.
	I have never seen any direct evidence of internship being exploited. I think that it is a sensible system that benefits young people. The more we can encourage young people to have a taste of the real political process from a range of political perspectives, the better.

Andrew Turner: The Leader of the House is not usually given to hyperbole but he did err in that direction in responding to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on back garden development. Could that be because the Government have a guilty secret? They think that back garden development and the pressure on housing in the south-east is a result only of people unreasonably setting up new families and living longer, when there is in fact a third reason: the 500,000 new people who came into this country last year, and the many more people who come every year. Perhaps we could have a debate on that?

Jack Straw: First, let me say that the Government have many secrets but none of them is guilty. Secondly, I was not trying to be hyperbolic; I was simply trying to set out the facts. Of course there is immigration into this country, but factories and firms in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would not be operating effectively but for immigration from, for example, eastern Europe, and that is certainly true for my constituency as well. We agreed to the expansion of the European Union and what went with that. We should celebrate the fact that we have a booming economy—it is particularly booming in London and the south-east—and then make proper arrangements to cope with some of the consequences of that, which include great pressure on housing.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House uncharacteristically failed to explain properly why the Prime Minister is not making the NATO summit statement today, may I give him another opportunity to do so by asking him first to confirm that the Prime Minister has always given the NATO summit statement, and secondly to agree that the summit in Riga was of immense importance bearing in mind NATO's involvement in Afghanistan and the failure of some member states to play their full role? Finally, will he give us an assurance that the next Prime Minister will make a statement on the next NATO summit from the Dispatch Box?

Jack Straw: I take the right hon. Gentleman at his word if he says that the Prime Minister has in the past given the statement about the NATO summit. I also say to him that Members of this House cannot have it both ways: on the one hand the Prime Minister is taunted for taking too much control over Ministers, but on the other hand when he sensibly delegates responsibility to a senior colleague—who, in this instance, attended the event—he is criticised for not being present. This Prime Minister has made more statements per year than previous Prime Ministers. He will make a statement on the future of the Trident system on Monday, and I support him on the matter asked about. It is perfectly reasonable that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes the statement today. It was an important summit, but he attended it and can give good witness as to what was decided at it.

James Duddridge: May we have a statement on the legislative process for the climate change Bill, and specifically on whether it will be appropriate for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to take on a pre-legislative scrutiny role?

Jack Straw: I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about that. The answer to the question is that that partly depends on whether the Bill is published in draft. The proposal in the Queen's Speech is that we have a Bill rather than a draft Bill, but we did think about having a draft Bill. If it is published in final form, because it will have its Second Reading after 1 January, it will in any event be subject to the much improved Public Bill Committee stage that the Modernisation Committee proposed and the House has endorsed, including an inquiry over the first three or four sittings.

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate on how we can work with wildlife trusts, bat, butterfly and moth conservation groups and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in utilising the £2.7 million additional spending that has been announced by the Department for Education and Skills for taking the curriculum outside the classroom so that we can reconnect our young people with the natural environment?

Jack Straw: I will do my best to support my hon. Friend on that. I also pay tribute to the RSPB because it has one of the largest memberships of any organisation in the country. It not only gives a lot of pleasure to its 1.3 million—I think—members, but plays a major role in preserving the environment and providing indicators of future trends in climate change.

John Bercow: May we please have a statement or debate on the provision of speech and language therapy to young offenders? Given that the governor of Polmont young offenders institution has stated that his speech and language therapist is his single most important member of staff who, by enabling boys to access education and express their needs, is vital to their rehabilitation, does the Leader of the House accept that, as Lord Ramsbotham has long argued, it is important that the Government make a firm commitment to ensure that a speech and language therapist is attached to every young offenders institution in this country?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present and listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. We would all like speech and language therapists to be attached to all offenders institutions, but that is a matter of priorities and of the availability of such skilled individuals.

Nadine Dorries: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Sentencing Advisory Panel has recommended to the courts that custodial sentences be dropped for shoplifting? The manager and the entire staff of a large supermarket in Ampthill in my constituency have written of their great concern at that decision, because such sentences are the only disincentive to shoplifting. Given that the retail industry will probably have one of its worst ever years because of online shopping, that is far from helpful. Should such a measure not be debated and discussed in the House and be introduced as an amendment to existing legislation, rather than be a recommendation from an independent body?

Jack Straw: That is a recommendation from an advisory body; it is not a decision by Ministers.  [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed from a sedentary position that Ministers have not yet made a decision on that recommendation. The concerns of the hon. Lady and her constituents will of course be taken into account, and I think that they are widely shared across the House.

Hugh Robertson: The Government have made no statement whatsoever about the budget for the Olympic games since the Lords amendment to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill was discussed in this House in March. Bearing in mind the considerable press speculation and the fact that the Government are refusing to answer parliamentary written questions on it—they are simply using the formula, "A review is in progress and the results will be announced in due course"—will the Leader of the House ask the Olympics Minister to make a statement to this House? There are many Members in all parts of the House who, although they support the Olympic games and wish to continue to do so, feel that the lack of transparency and accountability is doing the Olympic process enormous damage.

Jack Straw: As Chairman of the Cabinet Committee responsible for the Olympics, I can say that we will of course provide the House with detailed and further information when it is available. However, a review is continuing, and much of the press speculation is just that. Meanwhile, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken note of the high praise offered to the forthcoming London Olympics and its state of organisation and readiness by the chairman and senior executives of the International Olympic Committee, who met yesterday.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Alexander Litvinenko

Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling to make. The inquest into Mr. Litvinenko was formally opened at 11 o'clock this morning and immediately adjourned. In view of the Home Secretary's statement and the general public interest, I am exercising my discretion to waive strict application of the sub judice rule, but I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that an inquest has been opened.

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the death of Mr. Alexander Litvinenko. This statement provides an update on the circumstances surrounding his death on 23 November 2006. As I made clear to the House on Monday, Mr. Speaker, and as you have again made clear, I remain limited in what I can say, in order to ensure the integrity of the police investigation and to observe the relevant proprieties. I continue to work with my colleagues across government to ensure an appropriate response to the developing situation, and I am grateful in particular to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretaries of State for Health and for Transport for their assistance.
	In my previous statement, I highlighted the issues being addressed by the Government in response to the death of Mr. Litvinenko. I confirmed that traces of the radioactive isotope polonium-210 had been found in Mr. Litvinenko's urine, and at several London locations. To date, some 24 venues have been, or are being, monitored, and experts have confirmed traces of contamination at approximately 12 of these venues. Police continue to trace possible witnesses and to examine Mr Litvinenko's movements at relevant times. It is probable that the investigation will continue to bring additional locations to our attention for screening—additional, that is, to the numbers that I have just given to the House. I stress that the Health Protection Agency continues to reassure members of the public that the risk of exposure to this substance remains low.
	At 23.00 hours last night, NHS Direct had received approximately 1,700 calls. A total of 69 people have been referred by NHS Direct to the HPA as a precaution. Fifty-two of those people have been contacted, 18 of whom have been referred to a special clinic or to an appropriate clinic in their area. To date, 29 urine tests have been returned, and none of the results shows any cause for concern. I hope that that helps to reassure the public on these issues.
	Earlier today, as you mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the coroner opened the inquest into Mr Litvinenko's death, which was formally adjourned pending further scientific evidence and investigation by the police. The post mortem is expected to take place tomorrow. As confirmed last night, two British Airways aircraft are being monitored by experts at London Heathrow. I can confirm that early results show low levels of a radioactive substance on board both aircraft. The HPA expects to be able to confirm that no residual public health risk remains on the first plane. A formal report is in progress, and measurements continue to be taken on the second plane. The risk to public health is, we believe, low, but passengers who wish to receive further advice should in the first instance contact the special helpline or website set up by British Airways to confirm that they were on one of the aircraft. If they were and they are concerned, they should contact NHS Direct for further advice.
	A third BA aircraft is on the ground at Moscow airport. BA has decided not to return it to London until the position is clearer, and the Government are in contact with BA about the next steps. Between them, these three aircraft have made some 221 flights, involving about 33,000 passengers and approximately 3,000 staff. A fourth aircraft of interest—a Boeing 737 leased by Transaero—arrived at London Heathrow terminal 1 this morning. Passenger details will be collected and the HPA will contact individuals if any matters of concern are found.
	The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister on Wednesday 29 November and requested all necessary assistance with the public health aspects of this incident. In addition, she formally requested all necessary co-operation with the ongoing investigation. The Russian Foreign Minister assured her that this co-operation would be forthcoming. We will contact other Governments of countries where the planes that I have mentioned might have landed in the interim.
	I hope that this statement and the various bulletins issued by the health authorities have given a degree of reassurance, at least, at what is an understandably worrying time for many travellers.

David Davis: I start by thanking the Home Secretary for making this statement today and for providing the Opposition with early sight of it.
	We understand that more than 30,000 British Airways passengers have been alerted on the basis of risk of radiation exposure. Clearly, the grim pictures of Mr. Litvinenko in his dying days and the large number of people nominally exposed to polonium-210 traces could lead to unnecessary public alarm. I appreciate the Home Secretary's caution on any matter involving public safety. He used the phrase—I think I have it right—"the risk of exposure is low". Will he clarify that? In particular, will he give an objective assessment of the risk to the public, based on the expert scientific advice he has received to date, and will he confirm that this risk is very small indeed?
	On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said:
	"There is no diplomatic or political barrier in the way of that investigation going where it needs to go."
	Will the Home Secretary confirm that the police have been, or will be, instructed that diplomatic niceties will not obstruct or influence in any way the conduct of this investigation?
	There is predictable ongoing fever-pitch speculation in the media. Will the Home Secretary provide any further answers and reassurance at this stage? I understand, particularly in the light of your comments, Mr. Speaker, that there are legal limitations to what the Home Secretary can say. However, can he quash at least one rumour reported in the press and inform the House whether any of the aircraft under inspection in London or Moscow have carried a diplomatic bag since the beginning of October this year?
	Many Russian émigrés in London will be feeling alarmed about their own safety after the events of the last weeks. That alarm will have worsened after Yegor Gaidar, the former Russian Prime Minister, was taken seriously ill in Ireland and his office said that he might have been poisoned. Is any action being taken to protect and reassure other Russian dissidents in the UK?

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. As far as we can tell, the risk of exposure is very low indeed because of several factors. First, polonium-210 is an isotope that radiates over a very short distance—centimetres, rather than metres. Secondly, almost any barrier between the source of polonium-210 radiation and a person will stop the travel of that radiation—even thick paper. So if it is in a glass phial, for instance, the radiation will not travel.
	Thirdly, there has to be ingestion of polonium-210, either by eating, inhalation or via a cut. As far as we are aware, with inhalation, the level in sieverts would be so low as to mean a very small risk. That is borne out by all the evidence that we have. I mentioned 29 urine tests, mainly of hospital and other staff. All have been cleared of concern, and I hope that that provides reassurance to those who may have been worried.
	As for the two aeroplanes on the ground at Heathrow, one is expected to be cleared by the HPA when it has compiled its report, and the other is being monitored. Tests are being carried out and BA will make a decision on whether to bring the other aeroplane back from Moscow on the basis of the results.
	As for co-operation with the Russians, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to them and we have been assured of their co-operation. We understand that that assurance goes up to the highest level in the Russian authorities. Of course, if it is necessary to use the powers that are conferred on the police to obtain access, for instance, to aeroplanes in this country, they will be prepared to exercise that power on their own judgment. There will be no political prohibition on the police following where the evidence leads them. In that context, I have no knowledge of any diplomatic bags. I had not seen that story but I will satisfy myself about the position and, if I need to correct anything that I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, I will come back and do so.

Nicholas Clegg: I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for his statement and advance notice of it. I have two questions, one specific and one more general. The Home Secretary referred to the need for passengers and staff on those flights to refer themselves, in the first instance, to BA and then to the health authorities. Can he confirm that procedures are in place, both for BA and NHS Direct, to refer passengers to the police if they have information of any value in identifying passengers of interest to those conducting the investigation?
	Can the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that, once this episode is put behind us, the general issue of the availability and ready transport of radioactive materials will be considered with redoubled effort and the appropriate clinical priority attached? I discovered this morning that the International Atomic Energy Agency's database on illicit trafficking has recorded more than 650 incidents since 1993 of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material. Those are just the incidents that the IAEA knows about, and the House will be keen to ensure that the Government will redouble their efforts to address that issue.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman and he is correct that there is a BA helpline for anyone who thinks that they may have travelled on one of the planes. If necessary—and the numbers should be falling all the time—the helpline will refer them to NHS Direct, which will monitor them and refer them on if appropriate. The helpline number is 0845 6040171, and the website also has information.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about cross-reference to the police. Within all the exigencies and proprieties of data protection and privacy, the agencies are liaising to refer people onwards if they have some useful information.
	As regards radioactive materials, I told the House in my last statement that there are probably between 130 and 150 sites where the material might be used in some form in the UK. As far as we can make out, there has been no loss or theft from any of those sites. That is our concern in the short term, but the hon. Gentleman correctly points out that in the medium term this incident will enhance our awareness of the dangers of the proliferation of radioactive materials, and we will certainly look to learn lessons from it.

Michael Clapham: Has my right hon. Friend been advised that the radioactive footprint in the aircraft indicates polonium-210 or other radioactive material?

John Reid: Of the 24 sites that have so far been investigated, contamination has been found at 12. There are two stages to the process. The first is the detection of some radioactive contamination and the second, which takes a little longer, is studying it to see which form it is. In most of the cases that I have identified, the contamination is polonium-210. It is at very low levels in some cases, and higher in others, although none is a health hazard of any significance. As my hon. Friend may know, the radiation output is measured in becquerels, which is the rate of radioactive deterioration of the material, or the number of clicks on a Geiger counter, for those who are not scientifically minded. The range of contamination of polonium-210 found so far is quite significant, but even at the higher limits it is not a huge risk to anyone.

Michael Ancram: Does not the existence of the traces on the aircraft suggest at least that that dangerous isotope can be carried on to them without being detected by all the highly sophisticated security equipment that we have at British airports at present? Is not that a loophole that the Government should look closely at closing as soon as possible?

John Reid: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, we should try to learn all the lessons that we can from this incident. He will understand if I do not confirm or deny any technical aspects of the security precautions, but I assure him that we are concerned not only with the investigation but with what lessons we may learn from it. The willingness of the public to help in the investigation is illustrated by the fact that the staff who have been asked to help the police with their inquiries have been very helpful.

Kali Mountford: During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, we tried to imagine the unimaginable, but we failed to imagine this event. We did think about the relationship between security, health and transport. Has my right hon. Friend yet had an opportunity to assess that relationship following this event and the response in terms of civil contingencies and emergency planning? When he has done that assessment, will he advise the House whether he is satisfied with that response?

John Reid: I can tell my hon. Friend that I am happy with the co-operation that we have received from all of my colleagues in government, as witnessed by the fact that so many of them are in their places on the Front Bench. Ministers have attended Cobra regularly and worked closely together. We can learn lessons from the incident and we will have our proceedings monitored as a process, apart from the practical efforts that are in hand, so that we can see what lessons can be learned about working together.

Mark Field: It is believed that some of the poisoning may have taken place in various residences and other properties in my constituency. Obviously, the media have focused hitherto on the very human tragedy of this case, but I am concerned about the safety and welfare of my constituents and of those who work in and visit my constituency. I appreciate that the Home Secretary may not be able to go into great detail just now, but will he say on what basis a former senior KGB officer was given asylum in this country? Presumably, many other people from across the world are in the same boat. Should we not now give serious consideration to ensuring that people who come to this country and who intend to remain political agitators against other sovereign states are not allowed to stay?

John Reid: I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Gordon Prentice: How long does it take polonium to decay and become harmless?

John Reid: It has a half life of 138 days.

Shailesh Vara: Has the Home Secretary considered liaising with his counterparts in other countries to determine whether people have died under similar circumstances elsewhere? Given the international nature of the inquiries, and if there have been such deaths, would not the pooling of information be of benefit to all?

John Reid: To the best of my knowledge, the only other death in similar circumstances happened back in the 1950s. However, I have no doubt that the historical and medical evidence will be reviewed as the case proceeds. At the moment, we have very little information.

Helen Goodman: NHS Direct and the Health Protection Agency have evidently been doing an excellent job in identifying, tracing and testing people. My right hon. Friend has explained what people on the relevant flights can do and how they can contact British Airways, but has he asked the airline to take proactive steps to trace people who may have been affected?

John Reid: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been actively involved with British Airways, which has assisted us to the best of its ability—to the extent that it has agreed, even before calls are made to NHS Direct or the health authorities, to facilitate the reception of telephone calls to confirm whether people were on particular flights. I think that the system is working satisfactorily, although I hope that people will understand the problems that arise from the sheer number of travellers involved. As I said earlier, since around 1 November the three planes that I mentioned have carried something in excess of 30,000 people to 221 destinations. However, British Airways is making every effort to respond positively in very difficult circumstances.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, and thank him for giving us advance sight of it. I agree that this is a worrying time for many travellers. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was contacting the Governments of the other countries in which the planes may have landed. He specified four aircraft in his statement, but will he say whether any other aircraft or airports in the UK have been tested? Are there any plans to do so?

John Reid: As far as the aircraft are concerned, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that two British Airways planes at Heathrow and one at Moscow airport are involved. In addition, an aeroplane with the Russian airline Transaero landed at Heathrow this morning, and we know of one other Russian plane in which we think that we might be interested. Other planes may be involved that we do not know about at present, but those are the five that we know of. The hon. Gentleman also asked about airports in this country. Although we believe that we need concentrate only on Heathrow, several European airports might require investigation. The investigation is dynamic and is changing by the minute, let alone the hour. If we become aware of any further problems, we will send out an immediate alert and seek to discover the whereabouts or transit of any aeroplane that might be involved.

Mark Lazarowicz: If something like 33,000 passengers did indeed make journeys on the aeroplanes in question, it follows that several thousand would be citizens of other countries. Another possibility is that many British citizens who flew in those planes will still be on holiday or working overseas. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that other Governments and British citizens abroad are able to receive the sort of advice that NHS Direct makes available in the UK?

John Reid: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and her staff at the Foreign Office are in touch with our overseas posts, and they will send out what information they consider necessary. If specific health or transport advice is needed in any particular case, they will ensure that the necessary information is supplied.

Greg Hands: May I return to the second question asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, which has not yet been answered? It had to do with the safety of political dissidents and émigrés in London and the UK. Thousands of such people have been given asylum in this country, which is seen as a safe haven for those with political views that are unpopular in their own countries. However, if dissidents and émigrés are being assassinated in public or semi-public places in London, this country will no longer be considered to be a safe haven. In my opinion, this incident has had a severely negative impact on this country's reputation as well as Russia's.

John Reid: I find the hon. Gentleman's final sentiment—that this incident somehow reflects badly on this country and its services—quite extraordinary. We understand that, although our traditions of liberty and free speech sometimes cause great difficulties—for the British Government, as well as for others—they are often what people come here for. It is not possible to safeguard people in this country 100 per cent., whether they are dissidents in their own countries or not. I wish that it were, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do our utmost to ensure that everyone who is given citizenship or asylum here is protected to the best of our ability. To cast aspersions as he has is to criticise, unduly and unfairly, our security services, police and all the many people who are trying to ensure that this remains a safe country where opinions can be stated without fear or favour. I assure him that the investigation will be carried out in that way.

Mark Pritchard: My question follows on from the one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Britain must remain a safe haven for people fleeing political persecution, but does the Home Secretary agree that political dissidents who become agitators can, by their actions, undermine our national security? In those circumstances, should we not have a review of the people who are allowed to stay here?

John Reid: The difficulty is that the inference to be drawn from any answer to that question must be that we have already decided the outcome of the investigation. We must not get ahead of ourselves in that way. I stress that the police have not yet gone beyond saying that the death was suspicious. They will follow up all leads, some of which, as I said earlier, are changing by the hour. We are finding different sites to look at and I have no doubt that, by the time I leave the Chamber, the numbers that I have given in my statement could have changed again. We are giving the House information about this or that plane. We may discover that some, or a greater number, of the planes that we believed were of interest to us are not the right ones. That is the nature of an investigation and I urge the House to understand that while we are open as possible on such a subject—as is right, here in the cradle of democracy—we must nevertheless be responsible in using the information. However eager we are to build up a picture of conclusion in our minds, we may actually be only at the very early stages of the investigation.

NATO Summit

Des Browne: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the NATO summit in Riga, which I attended in support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
	Before going further, I should stress that there was overwhelming consensus among the leaders of the 26 NATO countries on the crucial importance of strong collective defence to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. They reaffirmed NATO's central role in defending our countries and our common values.
	The UK had three priorities for the Riga summit: ensuring success in NATO's military operations, notably in Afghanistan; improving NATO's expeditionary capability; and improving NATO's ability to work more closely with civilian partner organisations and the rest of the international community. I am pleased to report that, despite the complexity of some of those issues, and some genuine and legitimate differences of approach between member countries, real progress was achieved in all three areas.
	The primary focus of the summit was NATO's current operations. Today, more than 50,000 NATO personnel are deployed in six missions on three continents. More than half of them—32,000—are in Afghanistan, which remains NATO's top priority. All 26 NATO member states reconfirmed their commitment to the mission. There was a shared recognition that success in Afghanistan is crucial not just for the Afghan people and for regional and global security, but for NATO itself. As the Prime Minister has said, now that NATO has taken on this vital but challenging mission, its credibility is at stake.
	The summit offered an opportunity to take stock of progress in Afghanistan, particularly since 2003 when NATO took on the mission, in the form of the international security assistance force—ISAF. In place of the despotic rule of the Taliban, the country now has a democratic Government. The economy is growing, and infrastructure and basic services are being rebuilt. At last, after 30 years of conflict, the everyday lives of millions of Afghans are visibly improving. According to UN figures, 4.5 million refugees have returned to rebuild their lives.
	Of course, at the same time, the mission faces serious challenges. The Taliban and the drug lords are determined to fight to resist progress and they continue to exploit the impunity they have enjoyed in the south. ISAF forces have seen hard fighting over the summer and have taken significant casualties, but they faced down the Taliban and reinforced the Afghan Government in extending legitimate governance and the rule of law throughout the country.
	We know that some member countries have had reservations about the mission. Their domestic audiences have been concerned about the intensity of the fighting and have raised questions about the prospects for success, but even after this difficult summer everyone at Riga agreed that the mission in Afghanistan has to succeed. We should not underestimate the significance, at this moment, of all member countries explicitly reaffirming their support for the mission and their common pledge to provide ISAF with the forces and flexibility to ensure the continued success of this vital mission.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led calls for our allies to reconsider how they might do more to provide such forces and flexibility. There was a welcome signal from a number of nations that they would lift the national caveats on the use of their forces. There were also pledges of additional force contributions. I cannot give full details today; Members will have seen reports in the press, but we must wait for national Governments to confirm those commitments in due course.
	The pledges made at Riga are a small step in the context of a 32,000-strong mission when the ideal, as I have been impressing on my NATO opposite numbers for months, is that there should be no national caveats at all—something that I am proud to say is true of our 6,000 personnel in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that even if those are small steps, they are steps in the right direction. Before Riga, the Secretary-General estimated that 85 per cent. of ISAF's force requirements had been met; that has now risen to 90 per cent. and we must continue to work until we reach 100 per cent.
	We must also continue to work on the wider challenge of transforming NATO. The threat facing NATO members has changed dramatically since the alliance was formed in 1949. There is agreement that NATO must transform its capabilities to meet the challenges of a changing world. We must become more agile and more efficient.
	That is easy to say in theory, but harder to achieve in practice in the context of an alliance of 26 countries each with its own approach and its own sovereignty. There are signs of progress, however. Yesterday, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe declared the NATO response force fully operational. The NRF was established following the 2002 summit to provide a high-readiness force able to deploy quickly where required, to carry out the full range of alliance missions. That is a key development. Even before the force reached full operating capability it showed its worth, in the relief effort following the Pakistan earthquake last year. We also agreed new initiatives to increase the strategic airlift available to allies, to enhance co-operation between our special forces, to improve alliance logistics support and to streamline the NATO command structure.
	Of course, as I have said countless times from this Dispatch Box, success in the type of operation NATO is now undertaking will not be achieved by military means alone. That is especially clear in Afghanistan. The international community needs to work in a co-ordinated way across all the different lines of operation—security, governance, law and order, reconstruction and development, and counter-narcotics—to deliver a truly comprehensive approach.
	That comprehensive approach is not unique to Afghanistan. It is equally important in Kosovo where KFOR has been crucial not just in maintaining security but in supporting the political process. Such an approach will be needed in the majority of operations the international community undertakes in future.
	NATO cannot do the work of supporting governance and development by itself; nor should it. We have to improve the way we work with organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union, non-governmental organisations and national Governments who provide civilian capability. Yesterday, we agreed to develop new proposals for improving civil-military partnerships throughout all stages of operations, from planning to execution on the ground. NATO does not and should not pretend to be the sole means of creating and maintaining security. The civilians and military working in places such Afghanistan or Kosovo are working for the same aims; it is not a zero-sum game, where support for the UN or the EU is a defeat for NATO or vice versa.
	Many commentators feared that the summit in Riga would be a waste of time and at worst a failure. Those fears were unfounded. The summit reaffirmed the strength of purpose within the alliance and its commitment to remain a force for good in the 21st century.
	NATO is not perfect. It needs to prepare for tomorrow's challenges while continuing to adapt to today's operational needs. It has started the process of transformation and it is the responsibility of all of us, individually and collectively, to support that process. In protecting our security and our vital interests, there is no alternative to working within international organisations, and over the past 50 years NATO has proved itself to be one of the best we have. It deserves our continuing loyalty and support.

Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State's statement reflects the outcome of a very disappointing summit. Had it been otherwise the Prime Minister would undoubtedly have been at the Dispatch Box to claim the credit for himself.
	We agree with the communiqué's goal of avoiding "unnecessary duplication" between NATO and the EU. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial that EU members of NATO take active steps to prevent such duplication? Indeed, what duplication would ever be necessary, and is not that at the heart of the present crisis in relations between NATO and the EU, which is of the Prime Minister's making?
	We welcome the call for member nations to halt the decline in defence spending, but it underlines the Government's failure to reverse the decline over the past 10 years. Why has the summit abandoned the spending floor of 2 per cent. of gross domestic product? Have the Government allowed that commitment to be dropped?
	The big question is, of course, Afghanistan—NATO's first out-of-area operation, which is the most critical challenge facing NATO and the future credibility of the organisation. Is it not profoundly disappointing that France, Germany and Italy, which together have more than 5,500 troops in Afghanistan, have all flatly refused to commit them to Helmand, where they are most needed, save, as the communiqué states, in emergencies? Surely the continuing loss of British, American, Dutch and Canadian soldiers constitutes such an emergency. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Minister for the Middle East, who said:
	"The view seems to say that it's alright for British soldiers to die in defence of the West, but it's not alright for others"?
	Does the Secretary of State understand the magnitude of the challenge facing him when this nation's European NATO partners fail to meet their obligations? We now have an Army of under 100,000. We are committed to two major concurrent operations. We are short of helicopters and close air support, and lack proper protective vehicles, and we are supplied with second-rate ammunition. How long does he think that he can sustain this tempo of operations without others shouldering their fair share of the burden? Now we are told that the Royal Marines have had the promised extra money denied them, as they are in theatre, with the consequent damage to their morale.
	What discussions took place at Riga regarding the need for a greater commitment to reconstruction in Afghanistan and what decisions were reached in respect of poppy cultivation? Does the Secretary of State agree that to destroy the livelihood of poppy growers without offering them comparable incomes will put the lives of our armed forces at greater risk and increase support for the insurgents?
	Russia was the ghost at the feast. We note that NATO is to assess the risk to our energy security, but why is there nothing of substance in the communiqué on that vital matter? It has been a firm Government policy that Serbia could join the partnership for peace only once it had delivered those accused of war crimes, and yet we were told that Serbia would join the PFP without delivering. Why the U-turn? What signal does that send to those who have shielded war criminals for years?
	Finally, we note that NATO's missile defence feasibility study has been completed. Why has the Secretary of State not reported to the House on those developments, which are vital to the security of NATO members? Why does he refuse to answer questions about that matter in this place? Did he discuss with his NATO counterparts the possibility of ground-based interceptors being located on British soil?
	We believe that NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but it faces a potentially serious crisis. The summit failed to meet the challenge. It is time for all its members to demonstrate their commitment now.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share his ambition that we will work with our NATO allies to develop a capacity and capability that transforms NATO into an organisation that meets the evolving challenges of the 21st century. He will be pleased to know that all partners in NATO confirmed their ambition in relation to that objective in a co-operative fashion.
	On budgets, we have not abandoned—nor have we asked NATO to abandon—the 2 per cent. commitment. As the declaration recognises, in the case of some partners, there has been a fall in investment in respect of a reduction in their budget. We have to halt and change that direction of movement. There is a commitment in the communication towards that.
	With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we ought to celebrate the success of the transformation that has already taken place in NATO towards the expeditionary capability that we are seeing so successfully deployed in Afghanistan. However, that is not to say that there are not still challenges. Some of those challenges were discussed at length and relate to caveats and to a commitment of forces. Significant progress was made in that regard, but there is still much to do and I make no bones about that.
	I do not think that it is appropriate that we recognise only the loss in Afghanistan of soldiers who come from certain nations. Many other nations, including some of those that have deployed soldiers to the north and west of the country, have also lost brave troops in engendering the progress in Afghanistan. It would be entirely inappropriate if, as NATO, we reduced our policy in Afghanistan to a balance of body counts. That is not the appropriate way to look at things. Sacrifices have been made by other countries.
	Afghanistan, in parts other than the south, needs to be maintained in its state of progress and forces need to be deployed in that regard. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that the commanders on the ground need to have the flexibility to be able to move their troops, in relation to the operation plan, across the whole country. However, we should not become Helmand or southern-focused any more than those who are in the north or the west should become focused on only those parts.
	On the comprehensive approach, there has been significant development. That is reflected in the declaration, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read, in terms of the commitment for NATO to work. The area is difficult, and I understand that. As I explained in my statement, it is not a zero-sum game between the European Union and NATO, and it should not be allowed to become one. He is perfectly correct to say that there is no need for duplication, but there is a need for co-operation and, in particular, strategic co-operation.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance notice of it. I agree that it is good news that all the NATO member states have recommitted themselves to the action in Afghanistan. What assumptions were made at the summit about the length of the commitment in Afghanistan? In reconfirming their support, are all the member states up for a long haul, which it is generally agreed now is what they are in for?
	On caveats, the Secretary of State has done his best to reinforce the smiles and the declarations at the end of the summit, but, rather like Budgets, these things often look better at the time than they do a day or two later. He has said that he cannot go into the detail of caveats today because other countries will have to confirm their arrangements. How long does he think that that confirmation process will take? Is it true that the larger countries, with the significant numbers, have agreed only that they will help in an emergency? Surely they would have helped in an emergency in any case, or else what sort of an alliance is it?
	It is doubtless welcome that Slovenia and Luxembourg have agreed to lift their caveats, but with 50 and 10 troops respectively, that is not going to make a big difference to the shortages of troops in southern Afghanistan. Is the Secretary of State assuring us that serious progress has been made in dealing with the shortage of 2,500 or so troops in the south? He mentioned helicopters. Will he confirm whether he is confident that the helicopter shortage has also been addressed?
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussion, if any, there was about NATO developing relationships with countries outside the north Atlantic area? Australia and Japan, for example, have been referred to in recent days. What was the French attitude to that? What future does he see for NATO entering into relationships with sympathetic countries in other parts of the world?

Des Browne: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the declaration that Riga has successfully delivered the first step towards deepening NATO partnership relations with existing partners, with troop contributors—of whom there are 18 over and above the 26 NATO nations, in operations across the globe—and potential contributors to NATO-led operations. The part of the declaration that deals with that covers a number of pages and he will have to take the time to read it himself. In response to his question, that means that non-NATO countries, such as Australia and Japan, will be able to discuss existing and future operations with NATO in a flexible, transparent and pragmatic way, and will have access to the partnership tools, which are important, currently available only to existing partners. Those are significant steps forward and they were unanimously agreed.
	I understand the concentration on Afghanistan. That was the priority in terms of operations for the summit itself. There is an understanding by all those involved in Afghanistan that this is a long-term commitment. However, I hasten to add that that does not mean a long-term commitment in its current phase. As we have seen, there are parts of Afghanistan where our commitment to the country has moved it on significantly. Holding that improvement is, of course, important. Stabilising it, and building governance and economic development in those areas is important to continued security. I am careful to qualify the commitment to the long haul, because it is often erroneously interpreted as a suggestion that there will be a long haul of, for example, the sort of war fighting that we have seen in Afghanistan in the immediate past, but that is not what I mean. There is a commitment by the developed world, beyond NATO, to a long haul in Afghanistan, because there is no alternative.
	I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's specific questions about when things will happen. One of the delights of NATO is that the countries are all different, and they have different ways of making decisions. Some of them constitutionally require the involvement of their legislature in making decisions and announcements, so we must just wait and see what happens. However, there has been an important step forward in accepting the principle that the troops deployed to such a theatre ought, in principle, to accept the same risks. That issue has to work its way through, and I accept that there are still challenges.
	We should not belittle the contributions of some of the smaller countries. Some of them make contributions that are significantly disproportionate to their size. Importantly—and I make this point advisedly—the effect that they have with comparatively small numbers of specialised troops is often disproportionate.

John Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that the future success of NATO, which is the best military alliance that we have ever had, is dependent on greater transatlantic defence industrial co-operation? To that end, does he agree that an early settlement of the issue of the sovereign capability to upgrade and maintain the joint strike fighter will help us?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate the Government's often-stated position on the subject. I do not think that anyone in the House has any doubt about how important the issue is to the joint strike fighter project; it is a condition precedent. Of course, it is assessed that the joint strike fighter may potentially make a significant contribution to our armed forces' capabilities. The point that he makes is almost axiomatic.

James Arbuthnot: The Secretary of State made an announcement that contains some good things. The NATO response force announcement was good, too, and good news was announced about the C17s. On a point that has just been raised, the ringing declaration that, in an emergency, NATO countries would support each other implies that if there was no such declaration, that might not have happened. Was it not deeply disappointing that there was not a much greater commitment from the larger European NATO countries to Afghanistan? If the Secretary of State is right to say that NATO's credibility was at stake, does he not agree that one small step is not nearly enough, and that NATO's credibility has been rather damaged by the disappointing summit?

Des Browne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his recognition of at least two of a number of significant developments and areas of progress. He is right to point out how significant it is that the NRF has reached full operational capability—an advance for NATO. We ought not to consider any individual summit as a defining moment for NATO, either immediately after it or retrospectively. Our collective commitment to Afghanistan has set a number of challenges for NATO as an alliance, and the issue that he mentions is but one of them. As for the idea that the challenge occurred when we deployed into Afghanistan, and had not existed in the NATO alliance for some time, we have made progress on the issue, just as we have made significant progress on partnerships. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in the subject of partnerships, and I look forward to the Defence Committee, of which he is chair, addressing the relationship between NATO and the EU in the future. Of course, the Department will co-operate fully with that investigation and that report. When we make progress, we should not seek to present it as failure. Progress is progress, and there has been significant progress.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. May I remind hon. Members of Mr. Speaker's ruling that Back Benchers should ask one supplementary question?

Jane Kennedy: May I ask the Secretary of State whether the summit considered Iran's role in the region of Afghanistan, given Iran's destructive role in respect of Iraq and Lebanon? Did the NATO summit deal with the issue of whether it would be possible to consider an initiative that would encourage Iran to play a more constructive role, and was it considered that Turkey could play a role in that regard?

Des Browne: NATO has long recognised, in its deployment in different regions of the world, that other countries in the region play a significant role in achieving objectives such as, in the case of Afghanistan, nation building. There was, of course, discussion of all its neighbours, including Iran, and discussion of the often-repeated evidence that forces from Iran—and, often, the deployment of weapons of Iranian origin in theatre—have a detrimental effect on our ability to achieve those objectives. The members of NATO call on countries in the region to make a positive contribution, and we consistently, in diplomatic and other ways, call on Iran to make a positive contribution.

Bernard Jenkin: If NATO will not match the commitment that the mission requires it to make in Afghanistan, is not the time approaching when the mission in Afghanistan will have to be limited to the resources that NATO is prepared to commit to that operation?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am in constant touch with not only our commanders on the ground, but the commanders of the international security assistance force, and they reassure me that, at present, they have the resources to carry out the job. That is not to say, however, that I do not recognise, as he does, that war fighting tends to be seasonal in Afghanistan. We ought to recognise that we have time before the likely development of that seasonal effect to address the continued shortfall in relation to the combined joint statement of requirement, and we will continue to do that.

David Crausby: I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend's comments about the elimination of national caveats by some nations. Does he not agree that all participants, regardless of the size of their contribution, should take equal risk? Is it not completely unacceptable that British soldiers should be in harm's way to a greater extent than other participants, and other NATO allies, involved in the operation?

Des Browne: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have consistently said, from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, that the alliance should share the burden and the risk, and he is entirely correct in what he says. We have made some progress towards that objective, but there is still work to be done.

Douglas Hogg: Is it not plain that Ministers deployed British troops to the southern provinces of Afghanistan without adequate equipment, and without making proper provision for reinforcements? Is that not negligence of a very high degree on the part of Ministers, and in different circumstances, would it not give rise to charges of corporate manslaughter?

Des Browne: The right hon. and learned Gentleman overstretches himself in his peroration. On the first part of his question, I do not accept that the force was not properly configured; it was configured according to advice, and it turned out to be more than capable of doing the job. Despite the fact that that force met significant resistance and violence from a formidable foe, it overcame and overmatched that foe repeatedly, to the extent that there has been significant progress. In the past few months there has been a significant reduction in the violence in Helmand. It does our troops and forces on the ground no service to represent what they have achieved in a comparatively short period, against a formidable foe, as a defeat.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that NATO forces are effectively in control of armed activity throughout Afghanistan, that they are heavily bogged down in Helmand province, and that other NATO member states do not want to contribute to the operation? How long does he think that that will continue, and is there an end in sight?

Des Browne: The basis of my hon. Friend's question utterly misrepresents the facts. There was serious war fighting over the summer in Helmand province, but the suggestion that our troops are bogged down is far from the truth. In fact, in most of the province, our troops move around quite freely, and there has been significant improvement in some areas. Construction work, for example, is starting to result in marked improvements to security in areas where previously there was violence. There is, of course, continued violence, but not at the tempo or scale of a few months ago. I repeat what I said earlier at the Dispatch Box—war fighting in Afghanistan tends to be seasonal, but there is no reason to assume that that is the only explanation. To describe the current situation as my hon. Friend did is to misrepresent it. As for the length of time, it will take us as long as we need—no one is suggesting that there is any alternative but to do what we need to do in building the nation in Afghanistan.

Tobias Ellwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that if we fail in Afghanistan it will not be because of our military efforts but because we will have failed to help with reconstruction and development efforts? The Secretary-General and General Jones have called for an international co-ordinator to link the UN, USAID, EU, the Department for International Development and the myriad non-governmental organisations that are operating independently or even competing with one another? Afghanistan has some large copper mines and, indeed, huge underground rivers, which are untouched because the international development effort is not co-ordinated. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now time that a co-ordinator is put in place, similar to the one who undertook such work in Bosnia?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of knowing the facts on Afghanistan, as his contributions to discussions in the House demonstrate. He identified an international aspect of our mission in Afghanistan, and it is entirely appropriate to do so at this stage. The international community, in the form of NATO, faced that challenge squarely, and he will be aware that, drawing on the example of Kosovo, NATO accepted the proposal that a contact group should be part of the structure that he described. At the end of the day, it is fundamentally a NATO mission on behalf of the United Nations, which represents the whole world. Co-ordination must apply to all the strands and all parts of command and control, both in civil and military operations. It has largely improved at the provincial level in many areas, but at the national level the development of governance and international co-operation will deliver the success that we need.

Paul Flynn: The peacekeeping role of NATO forces in recent years has been brilliantly successful in many areas of conflict, but should we not accept that while all 26 countries support the idea that we can consolidate and protect the gains made in Kabul, many of them have serious doubts about whether we can win in Helmand province, and believe that our mission there is impossible? Will the Secretary of State confirm that in recent years our troops have been instructed not to fire a shot, but also to fire lots of shots; not to storm the Taliban strongholds and compounds, but also to storm them; to reconstruct, and not to reconstruct? They have been given confusing orders, so it is no wonder that our NATO allies are reluctant to take part in an unachievable mission.

Des Browne: First, the mission is not unachievable. Our success in north and west Afghanistan will be sustained only if we can replicate it in the south and the east of the country. The cities of Lashkar Gah and Kandahar are in the same country as Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif. If we do not address the fundamental problem of the Taliban throughout Afghanistan, or if we allow the Taliban in the south or east to behave with impunity, as has been the case historically, we will put at risk the progress that we have made in the north and the west, and anyone who believes otherwise fails to understand the nature of the country. Secondly, I do not know where the comparisons that my hon. Friend made about the confusing instructions given to our troops originated. Of course, commanders give troops different instructions in different circumstances, but they must be able to make those decisions in the light of the overall plan and tactical necessities at the time.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State has once again said that NATO and the international community need to do more work in all operations, including reconstruction and development. Can he tell us a little more about what NATO is doing with other international institutions to assist development in Afghanistan?

Des Browne: NATO is working closely in provincial reconstruction teams in almost every province of Afghanistan. The millions of children, including girls, now in education—that was not the case under the Taliban—are evidence of their work with non-governmental organisations to provide security for reconstruction. Some of those NGOs are native to Afghanistan, and others are associated with the international community, the United Nations, the European Union and other organisations that have invested in rebuilding the country as part of the Afghanistan compact. Other evidence is the improvement in health, but the best evidence of improvements is, I repeat, the 4.5 million refugees who have voluntarily returned to Afghanistan.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is extremely patient with our NATO allies, but is he not frustrated by the complex pattern of national caveats, even in those parts of the world where our troops are most closely integrated with other nationalities, for example, under the EU force in Bosnia? We all accept that for historical reasons it is difficult for Germany to take on a full combatant role, but is it not time that it changed its constitution and the organisation of its armed forces so that it could play a much more significant role in Afghanistan?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend identifies some of the challenges that we face, but may I tell him that frustration when dealing with any international community, never mind one that has been as successful as NATO over the past century or more, is a luxury. He recognised that the sovereign states that comprise an international community approach co-operation differently, depending on their circumstances. We must work with countries to encourage and support them through necessary change. Germany is an outstanding example, as it would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago for German troops to be deployed effectively in the international sphere. There is still much for them to do, but he will know that the German Government have expressed a desire to move forward. I have enough problems dealing with the issues as a member of the British Government without telling the Germans how to solve their problems.

Mark Lancaster: The Secretary of State will be aware that the largest offensive operation by NATO in recent years was Operation Medusa in Kandahar in early September, which was critical to Afghanistan's future. It nearly failed on day four—as he knows, I was there—because the national caveats meant that the Canadians simply did not have the support that they needed from other countries. If that emergency did not merit support from other NATO troops, what operation in Afghanistan would?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman speaks from significant experience on the ground, as he did an important job in Afghanistan over the summer. He deserves congratulations on his contribution to the successful work that our troops are doing, as it was appreciated by everyone who was with him.
	The hon. Gentleman describes a very specific part of Operation Medusa. I do not think that at the Dispatch Box I should debate with him whether his analysis is correct but, for the purposes of the question, I accept it. He identifies exactly the sort of problem that operational commanders can encounter if caveats act against the best interests of the campaign, and he identifies exactly the reason why we need to address these issues. We have made progress, but the work is not complete. Further progress needs to be made and we continue to debate and discuss these matters, to improve the capability and the capacity of our allies to respond appropriately.

Gordon Prentice: May I follow the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster)? The Canadians in Kandahar are in the crucible. They have taken many casualties. In his discussion—perhaps outside the conference—with the Canadians, did the Defence Secretary get any sense that their continued participation was conditional in any way on other countries pulling their weight? In the Canadian press and media and in Canadian public opinion, the view is expressed that for a relatively small country, they are doing their fair share and they want others to pitch in.

Des Browne: There is no question but that the Canadians have made a significant contribution and they have suffered a disproportionately high attrition rate. It is interesting that my hon. Friend cites Kandahar, as opposed to Helmand. We in the Chamber sometimes become a little Helmand-centric about the southern part of Afghanistan and lose sight of the historic importance of Kandahar to the Taliban, how iconic it is and how it may well be their most important strategic objective. I cannot speak for the Canadian media, but I met the Canadian Defence Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and as a result of the conversations that I had with them, I have no doubt that the Canadians are committed to continuing to make a significant contribution to what they have taken on and committed to Kandahar. Part of what the Government did in Riga, together with others who were represented and who have troops on the ground in the south, was to work more closely together than we have been able to do in the past to develop a collective approach to the southern part of Afghanistan, because we are all there together and all dependent on each other. It is that level of alliance, commitment and support that will reinforce the success that the Canadians have already had in Kandahar, and ensure that the support that they have from public opinion for their deployment in Afghanistan is sustained.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that if the success of NATO is to continue, national caveats must be ended and there should be equal burden-sharing and equal risk-sharing? Will he confirm to me that the commitment given publicly on television by the Prime Minister that our forces in Afghanistan will get all the equipment that they require will be honoured, as and when Brigadier Lorimer in particular has stated what he wants and that the equipment is required to guarantee NATO's success?

Des Browne: To the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I say yes. To the second part, I am tempted just to say yes, but I shall say that we have consistently provided the troops that we have deployed into theatre with the equipment that they need and we will continue to do so.

Andrew MacKay: Why has the Secretary of State made the statement whereas, after each previous NATO summit, a statement has rightly been made by the Prime Minister?

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman, among others, raised that issue in business questions, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House dealt with the proprieties of the matter. I am making the statement because I was present at the summit representing the Government and have the knowledge base to make it.

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Without wishing to be churlish, and recognising that the communiqué following the Riga summit contained a great number of issues, I am slightly concerned that the Secretary of State did not have time to answer some crucial questions, not least on energy security and missile defence. May I put the right hon. Gentleman on notice that I shall write to him and invite him to answer those questions?

Des Browne: I am very conscious of the instruction that we all received from the Speaker in relation to statements, and was punctilious in ensuring that what could have been a much more detailed statement was restricted in size and time to the House's guidance on such statements. I am conscious that I did not answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman was able to pose in the five minutes allotted to him, but I will write to him in relation to outstanding matters and ensure that a copy of that letter is placed in the Library of the House.

Hague Programme

[Relevant documents: The forty-first report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 34-xli.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I should make it clear to Members that in the final sentence of the motion, the word "transitional" should read "transnational".

Joan Ryan: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 11222/06, Commission Communication: Implementing the Hague Programme: the way forward, and 11228/06 and Addenda 1-2, Commission Report on the implementation of the Hague Programme for 2005; and takes note that the discussions at the Tampere Justice and Home Affairs Informal Council showed that there was little support amongst Member States for the proposed use of the Article 42 passerelle; and furthermore supports the Government's position that this is not the right time to focus on institutional change, and that the European Union's priority for Justice and Home Affairs should instead be on developing practical co-operation to combat the transitional challenges of terrorism, organised crime and migration.
	I thank the members of the European Scrutiny Committee for their report, "The Implementation of the Hague Programme on Justice and Home Affairs". Working with others to address issues such as counter-terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime can make a real and positive impact on the lives of UK citizens. As the framework for co-operation in these areas, the way the Hague programme is delivered is important and worthy of debate. I am therefore grateful for this further opportunity to set out the Government's position on the Hague programme, including the proposal to use the article 42 passerelle. I am sure it will be a lively and interesting debate.
	The Government remain committed to the Hague programme, which represented a good outcome for the UK. In general, it is the right format for organising justice and home affairs work. The mid-term review was welcome because it has helped us focus on what still needs to be done, and was an opportunity to ensure that we prioritise what is important to our citizens. So far, it has been a success. We have had some notable achievements, such as implementing the European arrest warrant. We have established or developed bodies such as the borders agency Frontex, Europol and Eurojust, which are becoming more and more effective.
	We must however work harder on delivering practical results and measures that make a real difference. Our top priorities are clearly strengthening our borders, stopping organised criminals and preventing terrorist attacks. We need to focus on efforts to exploit technology to strengthen our borders, including use of biometrics, and look at ways to prevent illegal migration at its source. We must use our political weight with non-co-operating source and transit countries to return illegal migrants, particularly to Africa, and work with transit countries to disrupt illegal and often dangerous smuggling and trafficking routes.
	We should have intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions that use Europol and Eurojust to assist member states to improve information exchange and help to co-ordinate groups of interested member states. We must work outside the European Union's borders, co-ordinating efforts abroad on organised crime, terrorism and illegal immigration. Collectively, we are looking at training and best practice exchange in the criminal justice field, enhancing existing mechanisms. Practical co-operation can really make a difference.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech. I agree with her comments so far. Does she agree that strengthening borders between member states is crucial to stopping those who would do us damage moving round more freely within the EU? Is there a danger that with the move towards more EU legislation, internal borders will be weakened and only the external borders of the EU will be kept strong?

Joan Ryan: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have freedom of movement within the European Union. If I understand him correctly, he is not disagreeing with me, in that we need to work together as member states and co-operate in tackling illegal immigration at the point at which illegal immigrants enter the EU. Working together and working with third countries is thus important.
	I was about to speak of the kind of co-operation that we would like to continue with and to give an example of the success of such co-operation. The case I describe to the House involves trafficking in human beings. Lithuanian women and girls were trafficked to the UK and sold to Albanian organised crime groups for prostitution. Eurojust facilitated mutual legal assistance requests, the initiation and co-ordination of investigations and prosecutions, and the execution of an urgent European arrest warrant. The cases resulted in the start of an investigation in Lithuania against the organisers, a number of convictions in the UK, including sentences of 18 and 21 years, and the transfer of prosecution to Lithuania of a Lithuanian arrested in the UK.
	The sorts of practical action that we would want the EU to focus on under the Hague programme include further development of Eurojust and the European judicial network as facilitators of judicial co-operation between member states. Practical co-operation through them is a fast, effective and easily arranged means of dealing with issues which may otherwise require time-consuming and resource-intensive negotiations.
	We are also pressing for improved co-operation on immigration and border control, both bilaterally and through Frontex. Concrete operations in which expertise and support are exchanged are extremely effective ways of bringing about rapid improvements. A bilateral study visit exchange between the UK national document forgery unit and Bulgarian border police led to a project to set up an equivalent unit in Bulgaria to strengthen its border control, to increase the capacity to detect forged documents.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that most people would regard what she is saying as an extremely good idea, namely co-operation between member states and internationally? Has it not occurred to her, however, that the centre of gravity of the problem is that by proposing to transfer jurisdiction in these areas to the Court of Justice, we will end up, not with co-operation between national courts, but with consolidation on a harmonised basis throughout the EU as a whole? That would not by any means be a good idea.

Joan Ryan: I am sure that much of today's debate will focus on that issue, but as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have not proposed that.
	To return to the co-operation to which I was referring, the unit in Bulgaria to strengthen its border controls for increased capacity to detect forged documents is a good development. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have placed great emphasis on developing practical co-operation and working together on the ground to deliver measures from which our citizens can see practical benefit. I hope he is right that everyone will agree that that is a good way forward, because it is the main thrust of our remarks at the European Council for Justice and Home Affairs.
	We are promoting practical co-operation on asylum, sharing information and best practice. That is the most likely way for states to improve their asylum systems, with the aim of reducing asylum shopping across the EU. Proper common implementation and enforcement of phase 1 asylum instruments, especially Dublin II, is key to taking this forward. We support practical measures related to access to information, and access to legal assistance and interpreters to enhance criminal procedure rights across the EU. Europe already has enough legislation in this area in the form of the European convention on human rights. We need to enhance compliance with the convention across the EU rather than creating new law. We can then draw on the experience of practical co-operation to ensure that real needs will be met through any proposed legislation. A more evidenced-based approach to legislation with better evaluation at the start will ensure that we focus our efforts in the right areas and legislate only where that is the best solution to a real EU problem.
	As part of its assessment of the Hague programme the Commission considered that decision making in justice and home affairs was hindered by third pillar institutional arrangements, in particular the requirement of unanimity. It therefore proposed use of article 42 of the treaty, the so called passerelle clause, to move judicial and police co-operation to the first pillar. The most likely and widely discussed consequence of that would be that voting would change from unanimity to qualified majority voting and member states would lose their right of veto. The Government have taken a consistent position on the question of the use of article 42. As active and influential players in justice and home affairs in the EU it was right that we participated in this debate and discussed whether there were ways to improve the speed and efficiency of decision making in the third pillar, including in particular whether using the passerelle would have this effect. We were not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Commission that using the passerelle would solve the problems that it identified, nor did we entirely agree with its assessment of progress to date in justice and home affairs.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On the important issue of switching justice and home affairs to majority voting, when the Minister gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee she would not rule it out. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), at the European Convention ruled it out when he said:
	"We have accepted extensions of majority voting on everything else in the Third Pillar, but if you look at our judicial system and court system—it becomes impossible for us".
	Why was it impossible for us in 2003, but the Government are now contemplating it? Is this not another example of the Government talking tough before proposals are made and then altering their position when the proposals come forward?

Joan Ryan: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that we are contemplating it does not mean that we are. I was clear on this point when we last discussed it—that is included in the report—that we will not say that we simply will not discuss certain things. First, it is important to discuss how we achieve speedier and effective decision making in justice and home affairs. That was the nature of the discussion. As I said, the Commission's view was that the passerelle was the solution. That is not necessarily our view, but it does not mean that we will not have the debate. Of course we will have the debate. Moreover, I will not look ahead through a crystal ball at any subsequent discussions or debates. Suffice it to say we have made it absolutely clear—

William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you consider the fact that we are having a debate that has been recommended under the appropriate Standing Orders for the proposals to be scrutinised on the Floor of the House as a result of the European Scrutiny Committee's recommendations? Surely it is not appropriate for the Minister to say that she is not prepared to say whether or not she would use the veto?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point is entirely a matter for debate.

Joan Ryan: As I will not rule out debate at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union, I certainly would not rule out debate here in our own national Parliament; that is why we are here to have this debate. However, I will not debate hypothetical situations or look into a crystal ball as to what might or might not be proposed in future. We need to debate what is before us. We have made our position on the passerelle absolutely clear. We have expressed serious concerns, and unless those are satisfied we cannot see how any further debate can be had. I think that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Wayne David: If the Government believe that the debate about the passerelle is over, surely every debate has a conclusion. What is the conclusion in this case?

Joan Ryan: The Justice and Home Affairs Council will meet next Monday and Tuesday, and this is on the agenda. As hon. Members will realise, my view, and that of many others, is that this debate is concluded. I do not expect any further concrete actions to arise from the passerelle proposal.

David Heath: Has the Minister just restated what it says in the motion—that the Government's position is
	"that this is not the right time to focus on institutional change"?
	If so, will they not accept the European Commission's proposal at the next meeting of the Council? If that is their position, perhaps we can short-circuit a lot of hyperbolic debate this afternoon.

Joan Ryan: I think that I have been clear. We do not expect the debate on the use of the passerelle to go any further than it already has or that any further concrete proposals will come forward at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. Obviously, I cannot guarantee that until it has actually happened.

David Heathcoat-Amory: In answer to my previous question about switching justice and home affairs to majority voting, the Minister said that she was unwilling to rule it out because the debate was unfolding and hypothetical situations might arise. Now she says that the debate is over. Which is it? Is she saying that she is not going to accept it, as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) did three years ago, because the debate is over, or is she saying that it may still be appropriate as the debate unfolds? We want clarity. Are the Government going to accept the passerelle clause, or are they going to use their veto, as did the Government representative on the European Convention?

Joan Ryan: I have dealt with those points, so I shall carry on with my remarks.
	The debate at EU level has been general. It did not get much beyond the question of whether, in broad terms, member states were in favour of transferring police and judicial co-operation to the first pillar. The majority, including the UK, expressed doubts about the Commission's reasoning and concerns about the potential impact. Given the overall tone of the debate, there was little discussion of what such a transfer might look like or what safeguards or restrictions might be put in place. That is why we have tried not to speculate about what safeguards might or might not be appropriate.
	We are not convinced that now is the right time to consider change. We consider that the debate at Tampere clearly indicated that there was little appetite for using the passerelle, and on that basis we think that the current debate is effectively over. We should instead focus our energy on delivering practical measures that make a real difference to the safety and security of our citizens. The Home Secretary will make that point clearly at next week's Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting.
	In conclusion, I return to my starting point. The Hague programme review is a welcome opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved and to review priorities. EU member states face similar threats from terrorists and organised crime and are affected by each other's vulnerabilities. Terrorist cells, crime and illegal immigration networks operate across borders and are invariably international. Working together in the EU, at 25-state level and bilaterally, is essential if we are to reduce the common threat and our vulnerability to it. The Hague programme and its associated strategies and action plans provide an effective framework for co-operation.

Edward Garnier: Anyone reading the motion on the Order Paper could be forgiven for thinking that it says it all. Unfortunately, the context in which this debate has arisen demonstrates that what we see on the Order Paper is no more than some fairly woolly words that do not describe with any accuracy what has gone before. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and his European Scrutiny Committee have, in their disappointment at the Government's response to their questions, required that the report should be debated on the Floor of the House. I accept that the Chamber is not particularly crowded this afternoon, but some Members present were not on that Committee.
	It is essential that the Minister and, through her, the rest of the Government, should be left in no doubt that so far the Government's performance in such matters has been wholly unsatisfactory. One does not have to read the question and answer session before the hon. Gentleman's Committee on 18 October to feel a terrible sense of foreboding that we are being represented inadequately in negotiations in Europe about these very important home affairs and justice issues.
	When the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) held the Minister's current role, I debated with her in Committee a similar set of proposals in relation to the penal regime that flowed from breaches of environmental law. On 13 September 2005, the European Court of Justice ruled on the powers that allow the European establishment to impose criminal sanctions for breaches of legislation in policy areas where the European Union has primacy in matters of law. That disappointed many of us. When I asked the hon. Member for Slough what would be the effect of a vote negativing the take-note motion that she was moving, she candidly said that it would have no effect at all and that the Government would not be influenced by it one way or the other. It strikes me as strange that a Committee of the House set up to discuss a particular European activity was being told by a Minister of the Crown that we could do and say as we wished, but it would make no difference to the Government's implementation of policy.

William Cash: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the root of the problem is that the Government are, in a sense, right in that it is theoretically impossible for a proposal that has been put before a European Standing Committee to be negatived in contravention of the European Communities Act 1972? Does he also accept that we are able to apply the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament and override the 1972 Act, provided that in such an amendment we add the rider that the judiciary would be bound to apply that latest express, if inconsistent, provision?

Edward Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I would encapsulate the problem thus: we simply cannot afford as a country and as a Parliament to be governed by invertebrates and to allow invertebrates to negotiate on our behalf. It is the duty of this House to put some steel in the backbone of this Government. Whatever the procedural niceties, we now have a perfect opportunity to do that, thanks to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and his Committee.

David Heath: I admire the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the molluscan tendencies of the Government in respect of negotiation. Having said that, having read the motion and having heard the Minister's somewhat elliptical—but, I think, straightforward—response, we have a useful opportunity to debate the issue, but surely it is not the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention to vote against a motion that says what many of us believe.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. and learned Member replies to that intervention, I should say that the term "invertebrates" is not one that I would expect to hear in the House.

Edward Garnier: I had thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was a perfectly ordinary English word in common usage, but—

Joan Ryan: Are you contradicting her?

Edward Garnier: I think that the Minister wishes to intervene.

Joan Ryan: I was simply wondering whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to pay attention to what Madam Deputy Speaker said to him.

Edward Garnier: I am making a speech, so I tend to prepare for, and to listen, to what I am about to say. I am paying attention.
	Let me move on to— [Interruption.] I am not normally a fan of debates on European affairs, as it tends to bring in the usual suspects and people who mutter under their breath. If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would like to ask me another question, I would be happy to answer it.

David Heath: I am grateful. I will ask him not another question, but the same question: does he agree with the words in the motion to the effect that the Government will not agree to the Commission's proposal?

Edward Garnier: I was about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when Madam Deputy Speaker quite properly brought it to my attention that the word "invertebrates" is apparently not in parliamentary usage. Having overcome that problem, I was interrupted by the Minister, who wanted to talk about something completely different. I will now return to the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. We are dissatisfied—I thought that I had already made it quite clear—with the wording because it does not accurately reflect the true state of affairs. For that reason, we will hold the Government to account for what they are doing.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?

Edward Garnier: As long as my right hon. Friend promises not to refer to any form of spineless behaviour.

David Heathcoat-Amory: But I am a usual suspect.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made a ruling that would cover both those words.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My intentions have nothing to do with zoology, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply wish to support my hon. and learned Friend in his criticism of the motion because—I refer to a point that he made earlier—the European Court of Justice case that will permit criminal justice measures to be imposed on member states by majority voting, against the wishes of the Parliament and Government concerned, circumvents the need for the passerelle. Criminal justice matters are switching to majority voting by act of the European Court of Justice, even in advance of what is on the Order Paper.

Edward Garnier: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We can either abdicate our responsibilities as Members of Parliament, let the Government have their way and be rolled on by others in the course of our negotiations, or we can stand up as MPs for our own national Parliament, our own constituents and our own country. It is a matter of decision and judgment. All hon. Members must make up their own minds about how they wish to vote this afternoon, but I shall certainly not support the Minister on the motion that she has put to the House this afternoon.

Keith Vaz: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: My parliamentary neighbour has only just arrived for the debate, which lasts only an hour and a half, so would he mind awfully if I made some progress? Otherwise, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk will not have an opportunity to speak. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever the right hon. Gentleman wants to say will appear in tomorrow's  Leicester Mercury in any event.
	On 19 September, the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary asking for an assurance that, on behalf of the British Government, he would retain the national veto over policing, our courts and our criminal laws because it is vital to the UK's national interest and the rights of British citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said in his letter:
	"If you surrender the veto, and introduce part of the European Constitution by the back door, you will put those rights in jeopardy. I urge you to state publicly and categorically that the UK veto will not be surrendered."
	My right hon. Friend is yet to receive a reply from the Home Secretary. The Minister gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee on 18 October and made some further remarks this afternoon, but I am still not clear about where the Government's true position lies. As I say, today we have an opportunity to ensure that the Government explain themselves and, if they will not, to show that they have not done so.
	We are talking about a form of competence creep from the third pillar of European structures to the first. It has always been our understanding—and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) suggested a moment ago, we had thought that it was the Government's understanding—that there should be no competence creep from one pillar to another. There should be no eliding of the pillars on matters of home affairs and justice. As my right hon. Friend said, that was the view not only of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), but of the Prime Minister.
	On 18 June 1997, one of the first occasions that he appeared before the House as Prime Minister, our current Prime Minister said:
	"In the justice and home affairs area, we have agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police matters, crime and drugs...However, such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity. Thanks to amendments that we also secured, the European Court will have no authority to decide cases brought in United Kingdom courts on those issues."—-[ Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 313.]
	There, at the outset of the Government's coming to power, the Prime Minister made it quite clear that he was not prepared to see any elision between the pillar structure or any use of a passarelle or gangplank to allow constitutional travel between one part and the next.
	On 6 June 2005, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said in response to questions on a statement:
	"The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we are intending to introduce any part of the constitution by the back door. The answer to that is no."
	He subsequently said that
	"there will be no proposals made by this Government that seek to bring in this constitutional treaty, or elements of it, by the back door. That is clear."—[ Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 994-1000.]
	He said that precisely in the context of a form of constitutional competence creep, which has concerned not just Conservative Members but those of all parties on the European Scrutiny Committee. If the Committee had no concerns, it would presumably have let the whole thing go through on 18 October without requiring the matter to be reported to the House. I look forward to hearing from the Chairman, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, whether he is in any part satisfied by the answers that he was given on that day and in the Minister's speech this afternoon.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for missing the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening remarks. I am just trying to be clear about Conservative party policy. There is no objection to the principle of co-operation between EU member states on these issues. The objection is solely about the use of qualified majority voting. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, however, if we look at the results of QMV over the last 20 years, we find that Britain has been on the winning side on almost all occasions, so what is he afraid of?

Edward Garnier: I had hoped that I had already made it clear, but let me try again. The issue that we are concerned about is not over QMV or unanimity. We are worried about the stealthy moving by means of the passerelle or gangplank of matters that have in the past—and in line with Government's undertakings from the Prime Minister downwards since 1997—been reserved for the unanimity pillar. If we are not careful, those matters are going to be moved behind our backs through incompetent negotiation into the qualified majority setting. I have no doubt that when the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was Minister for Europe, everything was hunky-dory in every way. No doubt this country's public could not have been better served. However, as he and I know only too well, he no longer holds that office.

Ian Davidson: Following on from the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and Brussels (Keith Vaz), may I clarify what the Opposition believe to be the best way to stop this slide from one pillar to another and to ensure that matters that ought to remain the subject of unanimity do so and are not allowed to move into an area of centralisation and mission creep?

Edward Garnier: By having a Conservative Government and a Conservative Minister who would represent the interests of this country with greater vehemence and greater clarity. The hon. Gentleman is a man of great consistency on these matters, and I am sure that he would wish to support any such Conservative Minister in those negotiations. Indeed, if he would like to become part of our—

Keith Vaz: He wants to be that Minister.

Edward Garnier: Well, if he would like to—

Ian Davidson: rose—

Joan Ryan: rose—

Edward Garnier: I am being bamboozled by so many hon. Members inviting me to give way. Perhaps I should finish my conversation with the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson).

Ian Davidson: I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is not the kind of answer that I find helpful in these circumstances. If he wishes to build a cross-party alliance against centralisation and against Brussels, there will have to be a move from purely partisan point scoring. I hope that he now feels thoroughly rebuked. If he wants my help in future, he had better behave better.

Edward Garnier: I feel suitably chastised. I am now so terrified of allowing any other interventions that I shall almost, but not quite, resist the temptation of being chastised by the Minister.

Joan Ryan: I want to make the point, before the hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion is repeated so often that people believe it to be a fact, that the competence creep from pillar 3 to pillar 1 is something that he fears; it is not something that is happening, and it not our policy. It is important to distinguish facts from any concerns that he might wish to raise.

Edward Garnier: I am afraid that they are not just my concerns; they are the concerns of the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends on the European Scrutiny Committee. If she had been 100 per cent. clear in her responses on the Government's policy and intentions, we would not be here now. The matter would have been quietly pushed away on 18 October, and the Committee, which is made up predominantly of Labour members, would have accepted what she had to say. Unfortunately, however, she did not make herself clear. If she has now changed her mind or arrived at a position that represents a concluded state of opinion, fine.

William Cash: Will my hon. and learned Friend note—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) might also wish to do so—that the Government's position is that
	"this is not the right time to focus on institutional change"?
	That is not quite the same as the Minister's suggestion that the debate is over. The motion states that
	"this is not the right time".

Edward Garnier: The problem is that, when the Minister gives oral evidence, she says one thing, but when she gets back to the Department, someone—no doubt with the best motives in the world—hands her a piece of paper that says something different. On 30 October, she sent to the Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) sits, a letter about some of the matters raised in her oral evidence. In a passage about the use of the passerelle, the letter says that it is unclear whether the Finnish presidency will propose further work on the subject during its presidency and that:
	"The Government considers the current debate to be over and that we should instead focus on practical measures in the current JHA agenda."
	That is fine, so far as it goes, but it is not clear whether the Government will therefore resist or veto any further competence creep, or whether they are simply parking the issue until some later date when there is a new President, or some new state of affairs in which a different view might be taken. For the life of me, I am no nearer to understanding what the Government are going to do on our behalf as a consequence either of the Minister's evidence to the Committee or of reading her letter.
	It should not be beyond the wit of man, or woman, for a Minister to understand what their own Government's policy is, and to be able to explain it in terms that everyone on the Committee can understand so that the Committee is not so worried that it requires the matter to be further discussed on the Floor of the House. Until we get clear answers from the Minister about what the Government intend to do, what their position is, and how they propose to defend the interests and rights of the British public, it is perfectly proper for the Opposition and other Members to criticise motions that are tabled in this rather bland and meaningless fashion. It is no good Ministers huffing and puffing and saying that the Opposition are silly to go on complaining.
	I accept that the issue is complicated, and I dare say that the Minister has spent a long time since coming into the Home Office last May getting to grips with the issues with which she has to deal on this aspect of Government policy. None the less, and even though it is difficult and complicated and involves multi-handed negotiations with all the other EU states, there is no excuse for the Government not making themselves clear. The messages that we are getting from them have tended to increase, rather than to remove, confusion. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are deeply dissatisfied with the way in which the Government have presented themselves to the House and to the Committee.
	There are a number of other detailed issues that I do not have time to discuss this afternoon, about which the Government have been less than clear in regard to the amalgamation, the eliding, of the two separate pillars. There are matters to do with the use of the veto in the national interest, and matters to do with the Government's acceptance of qualified majority voting as the best way to deal with these issues, which are integral to the national sovereignty of any country. We have only to look at the remarks of the Foreign Minister for Ireland to see how strongly he feels about this issue. We need to understand how important the making, enforcing and policing of the criminal law is to each country's own national make-up; these are not ephemeral matters of temporary interest.
	This Parliament is here to decide the criminal law of this country, and to determine the relevant punishments. It would not be proper for our Government—even when they do know what they are talking about—simply to allow, through neglect or failure to keep a proper look-out, matters that are firmly under the unanimity pillar of the European treaty to move quietly along the gangplank into the QMV pillar.
	The Government are here to give an account of themselves, and Parliament is here to make sure that Ministers are accountable. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and his Committee on bringing the Government to the Floor of the House to explain themselves. I remain wholly unsatisfied, and wholly unclear about what their real attitude towards this issue. I urge all Members to treat the motion tabled by the Minister with the deepest of scepticism.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that we have approximately 45 minutes left in the debate? If Members are brief in their remarks, more of them will have the opportunity to catch my eye.

Michael Connarty: I congratulate the House authorities on allowing this debate on the Floor of the House within two weeks of a European debate. May I say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that his style would have been more suited to a three-hour debate? He could have been more concise, so as to give many members of my Committee, who have been denied the chance to speak in the House for some time, a chance to take part in the debate.
	On behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am happy to present our 41st report for 2005-06. It starts with the evidence given on 18 October. We had serious concerns, which are expressed well on page 5 of the evidence by a member of the Committee who pointed out that if we were to move to qualified majority voting and to give the EU that power over any part of justice and home affairs—which are at present defended by a veto—and
	"if the EU acquires competence over something internally then the EU becomes the single, unified body which deals with all the external negotiations relating to that matter."
	It was on that point that the discussions foundered, because the Irish Government spotted the issue very quickly and made a strong case that echoed around the negotiations.
	The position was stated not at that evidence session, but quite clearly in the letter of 30 October, which can be found in our conclusions on pages 14 and 15. The Minister says that
	"the Government considers the debate about the passerelle 'to be over'."
	I therefore welcome the position that the Government are taking at this moment in the motion, which says that the
	"Home Affairs Informal Council showed that there was little support amongst Member States for the proposed use of the Article 42 passerelle".
	The Government have taken that position in saying that the focus of the Council
	"should instead be on developing practical co-operation to combat the transitional challenges of terrorism, organised crime and migration"
	and away from institutional change.
	For the reasons that have been given, and in relation to the Government's position, we have moved forward considerably, and I hope that members of my Committee will vote with the Government if a Division is called on the proposal, but I must bring to the attention of the House three pieces of further evidence, because my concern and that of my Committee is to be evidenced-based in what we say.
	The first piece of evidence is in the statement to Parliament by Baroness Scotland, following the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 5 and 6 October 2006:
	"The presidency is still reflecting on what its next steps should be, but we consider the current debate to be over."
	She then said:
	"The Commission urged the Presidency to reach agreement on the passerelle by the December European Council."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2006; Vol. 687, c. WS77.]
	It might indeed be urging the presidency to reach a conclusion that the passerelle is in fact a dead parrot, but then I read what Commissioner Frattini said at the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union conference just two weeks ago, which I attended with my hon. colleague from Wales.

Wayne David: Caerphilly.

Michael Connarty: My hon. colleague from Caerphilly in Wales, in fact. Commissioner Frattini said:
	"However, I still believe that, if in the coming months there will be no concrete and real progress in relaunching the draft Constitutional Treaty, the bridging clause"—
	which of course is the passerelle—
	"will represent an appropriate and important tool at the disposal of the Union and the Member States to ensure more efficiency, transparency and accountability of the decision making process."
	The Member who represents this Parliament in Brussels and reports to our Committee says:
	"The Presidency now intends to put the issue of improving decision-making on police and judicial cooperation in JHA matters on the agenda for the December European Council".
	The intention behind that is that the Finnish presidency wants to show progress on the Hague agenda.
	The Hague agenda is not just the passerelle clause, but it has become tied up with that. I hope that we will not see it forced on to the December Council meeting. If it is, I hope that our Government will stand firm on the position that they have given today.
	Future assurances are also required, I say to the Minister. I urge her to grasp ownership of her brief and not be seen as a messenger; otherwise, quite frankly, the Government should have instead sent the Home Secretary to reply to the debate. It must be her brief and she must stand firm on the position that we have been asking for from the Government, which they appear to be giving at this moment.
	The second part of our evidence was on the European evidence warrant, which is not to be mixed up with the European arrest warrant, which is a swift way to achieve extradition. There is a guilty party who is being sought for trial in the appropriate court, whereas the European evidence warrant, as our evidence showed—again and again, I come back to it—says that there are no guilty persons, although there is a crime. The idea of someone coming into this country with a European evidence warrant and having it rubber-stamped by our courts without challenge by them, and then going and kicking down the door of someone who may or may not be involved in that crime is not acceptable to our Committee.

Joan Ryan: I do not agree with the views my hon. Friend is expressing on the European evidence warrant, but I am intervening to say that he has referred to a guilty party in relation to the European arrest warrant. When we extradite, such people have yet to stand trial, so it is not established at that point that such an individual is the guilty party.

Michael Connarty: I accept that point. There is an accused who has been arrested and charged with a crime. No one has been charged with a crime in the evidence warrant scenario. Significantly, Germany said that it would accept the arrest warrant only if it had a derogation from six major areas in which the evidence warrant would be applied, because it thought it too vague, not relevant to transnational crimes such as terrorism, and not strong enough to make it give up its right to dual criminality. The issue in question would have to be a crime in Germany and in the country from which the evidence warrant came.
	This issue foundered on the basis of hot pursuit and surveillance. My worry is that hot pursuit and surveillance are a clear signal from the Commission of its intent and where it wants to go. We as a Committee suggest that Parliament, and also the British people, demand that the Government and this Minister stand firm on that matter, now and in the future. She said in her letter that there were no "significant gains" for the UK from the passerelle. The judgment must be in terms of when we discuss this further.
	Until we find that there are significant gains in something to move the justice and home affairs Hague agenda forward, such Commission proposals should not be brought back to the House. I hope that the Minister will stand firm on that in any Council she attends.

Mark Hunter: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the opportunity to have this debate today, not least because we accept that there is a legitimate debate to be had. The contributions from both sides of the House have amply demonstrated that fact. We also think it self-evident that there are benefits to more and greater co-operation in those matters across the EU, but at the same time we must be careful not to abandon matters of sovereignty. The British Parliament needs an opportunity to discuss matters arising from the European constitution systematically and sensibly, rather than have a brief debate on a fraction of the issues arising from qualified majority voting and Britain's veto powers.
	On the subject of sensible debate, I for one have been heartened by the fact that we have not heard the intemperate contributions to the debate that we have seen in certain sections of the press, as ever. In particular, my eye was caught by a recent item in  The Daily Telegraph by Simon Heffer, which was entitled "Britons could all too soon become slaves of Europe". It went on to warn that we might be
	"lulled into a dangerous sense of complacency towards the evils capable of being inflicted upon us, our country and our way of life by the EU."
	So it went on in similar vein. I am pleased that such intemperate tones have not been used in the debate.
	It is worth clarifying the current position as we understand it. The EU already decides some justice and home affairs policies on the basis of qualified majority voting, such as those relating to asylum, although the UK, along with Ireland, has opt-in clauses on such issues, which allow us to choose which area of EU legislation will apply to us. Other areas, such as legal immigration, family law and police and judicial co-operation decisions, require unanimity, which, in effect, gives every country a veto. There is a legitimate argument to simplify procedures on justice and home affairs matters where the EU has a justifiable role. Again, as we have made clear on previous occasions, we are not advocating abandoning the veto on legal matters, which is neither appropriate nor necessary.
	It seems to me that the EU has a fundamental role to play in guaranteeing peace and freedom across Europe. By promoting enterprise, protecting the environment, supporting global development and fighting discrimination, the EU undoubtedly brings enormous benefits to Britain. The EU must have the powers and resources to act effectively in areas where problems cannot be solved at national or regional level, while keeping out of areas where policy can be successfully managed at those levels. We will therefore continue to press for a diverse, democratic, decentralised Europe.
	We also acknowledge the need, however, to improve the quality of EU governance. The EU should focus its policy making only on those areas for which EU-wide action is indispensable. That means ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is fully respected. We recognise that terrorism, environmental pollution, trafficking and so on should be tackled through co-operation and international solidarity. Some cross-border issues cannot be dealt with by an individual nation or individual nation states. Where issues do not recognise national barriers, it makes no sense to place those barriers in the way of progress.
	There is a competence to legislate across the European Union on matters of international concern, and the UK Government must recognise that some crimes must be tackled using the first pillar approach. The priority for the Liberal Democrats has always been to ensure security for the UK and its citizens without sacrificing our liberties. In a world in which terrorists, drug dealers and people traffickers do not respect national boundaries, that can best be secured by working with our European partners in an efficient manner, while still ensuring that our national sovereignty remains intact. The Hague programme harmonises action programmes in criminal justice matters in such a way. We must, however, safeguard the common-law system. Distinctions need to be made between the controls of decisions to move to the first tier. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, and the UK should retain its veto.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is not the hon. Gentleman making the same mistake as the Minister by ignoring the extent to which we already accept majority voting on criminal justice matters? What does he think of the recent European Court of Justice case that decided that directives agreed by majority voting may require criminal justice enforcement in member states? Even if we voted against that directive, the criminal justice system in this country would be affected. Does he agree that the European Council should reverse that decision, rather than, as the Government suppose, simply accepting it?

Mark Hunter: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I do not agree with his point of view on the matter. I emphasise that I am relating my remarks to the motion that is actually on the Order Paper, not to the motion that it appears that he and some of his colleagues wish was on the Order Paper. By the end of my speech, I hope that he will have a clear idea of precisely where the Liberal Democrats stand on such matters.
	The Liberal Democrats also appreciate that there are some fundamental differences between the UK and our European neighbours in relation to the working of our criminal justice system. We therefore believe that any move to QMV must be accompanied by an insertion of an emergency brake system into the law-making process. Of course, the ill-fated European constitution proposed that. It would mean that if the UK deemed a measure—such as an attempt to limit jury trial or habeas corpus—to be a fundamental threat to our national sovereignty, we would not be bound to implement such policies. Our judicial and legal system is different from that of Europe, and we must not do anything to jeopardise it. Let me make it crystal clear that Liberal Democrats believe in the fundamental importance of trial by jury and habeas corpus, and will never agree to any policy, whether proposed by Europe or the Government, that puts those principles at risk. Some might say that, if anything, those values seem more at risk from the Government than from Europe. We need more than a 90-minute debate on the issue, and I hope that today's discussion will be part of a much wider and ongoing debate among all interested parties.
	I have noticed that many parliamentary colleagues have already asked questions on this matter and received somewhat vague answers—not just today, but on previous occasions. I acknowledge, however, that the Government's intentions on implementing the Hague programme have become a little clearer, to be charitable, as a result of the Minister's comments, but could she try to clear up some of the outstanding doubts raised in today's debate? Specifically, will she please confirm that any decisions about the Hague programme will be made on the Floor of the House, and that all members of all parties will have an opportunity to contribute? It is important that the constitution is not, and is not perceived to be, slipped in through the back door. There needs to be an open and honest debate about where decisions are made in the European Union.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Gentleman says that the constitution should not be slipped in through the back door. Does that mean that the Liberal Democrats will oppose any efforts to cherry-pick the constitution or introduce any elements of it by stealth?

Mark Hunter: We have already indicated that there are legitimate areas of debate, and I think that my contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) have shown exactly where we stand at this stage.
	As I was saying, there needs to be an open and honest debate about where decisions are made in the European Union. The Government must not avoid that, as I believe they originally sought to do by not allowing a referendum on the constitution. However, my hon. Friends and I are minded to support the motion, albeit with some of the caveats that I have listed.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall be brief.
	When I came here today, I was somewhat concerned about the motion and the provision. I have had just enough reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister to join her in the Lobby today, but I retain my deep suspicion of Brussels and what it is doing. There has been much talk today about biology, and I am more concerned about the vertebrates in Brussels—the snakes in the grass—than about our Government. My hon. Friend's reassurance was forthcoming eventually, and I hope that she will respond positively to the stiffening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty).
	This action is being taken under the Finnish presidency. I have great affection for the Finns and for their country. During a recent parliamentary visit to Finland, Finnish politicians told us, "We do not have the problems that you have in Britain, because people do not want to come to Finland. It is too cold for a start, and our language is extremely difficult." Unfortunately, we are targeted by people who are not always admirable or desirable, so it is important for us to retain strong control of our domestic, national borders rather than becoming part of a European Union that is effectively a state with an external border. Some member states may feel happy about that, but I believe that others feel just as we do.
	It may be possible to gain access to the EU through a leaky border in a far-flung region and then travel easily into our country. I understand that the Government are seeking to deal with that.

Ian Davidson: Given our inability to restrict the number of people in various categories who arrive from Romania and Bulgaria and our inability to expel many who have committed crimes in this country, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have already sold the pass to some extent?

Kelvin Hopkins: The Government made a profound mistake in not instituting the same provisions as other member states at the time of enlargement. They have changed their view in relation to Romania and Bulgaria and I think they were wise to do so, but the estimates of the numbers who would arrive from the new member states were far too low. Although I am happy to see young Polish people working well in my constituency, I believe that large population flows are destabilising, and they do not help the countries from which those people come. Poland has complained about losing large numbers of skilled and talented young people when they are needed to help their own economy.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend not at least acknowledge that the migrants who have come to Britain have made a superb contribution to the development of our economy?

Kelvin Hopkins: Obviously, if one imports large numbers of skilled and talented people, that will be beneficial in the short term. However, the point has been made that they also have costs, such as having to be looked after by the health service. I believe that large movements of populations are not sensible. Other member states have wisely been more cautious than us about such matters.
	I do not want us to slide secretively from unanimity to qualified majority voting on this matter—or indeed on many other matters. The passerelle is described as a gangplank. I would like there to be a new passerelle that is a bridge over which it is possible to go backwards and forwards—rather than just slip off the end and never change.
	Finally, I shall repeat something that I have said many times in the Chamber: I deeply disapprove of some things that have been done in the name of Europe and I would like them to be reversed, and I shall continue to speak up about such matters when appropriate occasions arise, but on this occasion I shall vote in support of the Minister, because the reassurance she has given is sufficiently strong and I trust that she will keep to that position for many years to come.

William Cash: The debate has reminded me of a part of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". The mock turtle's buckets of tears over the meetings with the griffin and Alice herself—I hope that I am right about this—came to mind when I heard all the references about the invertebrates, as did the remarkable statement made at that point in the book that rather summarises the position of the Government in the current context:
	"Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance?"
	The Minister has been engaged in something of a quadrille over the issue under discussion over the past few months. Even to this day and this minute, I do not think that she has answered the real question, which deserves to be answered and should have been answered a long time ago. As I pointed out in an intervention, this motion says that it is
	"the Government's position that this is not the right time to focus on institutional change".
	In Eurosceptic-speak that means "for the foreseeable future"—or similar phrases that we have heard over the past 20-odd years while I have been involved in this issue—because that is just an acceptance of that for the time being by the Government. That is why I disagree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my colleague on, and Chairman of, the European Scrutiny Committee: I will certainly vote against this motion. The door has opened and the Government have allowed the provisions to come through.
	I remember the 150 or so amendments that I tabled on the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, not to mention Maastricht, all because I was opposed to the continuous creeping invasion of our national sovereignty. All parties have agreed with me on that in the Chamber today: I have heard Members of all parties agree that they do not want an invasion of our national sovereignty. I have even heard that from the Liberal Democrats—heaven forgive me for mentioning that. The fact is that such arguments, which were utterly unacceptable some time ago, now seem to be fairly common form.
	The problem is, however, that when we get down to the application of that principle to a matter such as that under discussion, the position that the Government adopt is purely one of current expediency. They know perfectly well that the Germans do not want cherry-picking in this area because they want the constitutional treaty. They know perfectly well that the Irish have taken a position for their own internal reasons—I pay tribute to Mr. McDowell, to whom I have spoken on many occasions and who has a robust view about Irish sovereignty. I understand that there are people in other countries, such as Denmark and Poland, who all take the same position. The Minister's motion is, therefore, right to state
	"that there was little support amongst Member States",
	but the question that one has to consider is: where is all this still going?
	I am glad that my Front-Bench colleagues are taking the decisive position of voting against the motion. I have, on occasion, had reason to criticise some of my good friends for being a little less than decisive in vetoing other treaties, for example, when we had the opportunity to do so.
	The practical side of this proposal needs to be examined against the background of the reasons that the European institutions, and particularly the Commission, are giving for extending it to include qualified majority voting and the abandoning of the veto. As all Members have said, this is about national sovereignty and our criminal justice system. The Minister said that she wants to defend our national cause, but she has not closed the door in that regard, because the Government are part and parcel of the Hague programme and the treaties that have allowed it. I want this House to reassert its supremacy. I am very happy to have co-operation with other countries, particularly on trade, but we must override the European Communities Act 1972 and ensure that the judiciary is obliged to obey the latest legislation. Any attempt to go down this route—it remains on the table, even under the terms of this motion—has to be repudiated, which is why I am thoroughly glad that the leadership of my party has determined that we will vote against the motion.
	The Commission says that the reason for having this so-called passerelle—I do not like the word at all—is that "insufficient powers" have been given to the European Parliament. Its own document states that the
	"use of unanimity...often leads to agreement on the lowest common denominator basis"
	and provides merely for
	"a limited role for the [European] Court of Justice".
	It goes on to say why the Commission believes that these deficiencies could be remedied by the use of this so-called passerelle—this gangplank. Returning to the subject of children's stories—I have a five-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter, Tess, so I am reading them at the moment—let us remember Captain Hook and the gangplank in "Peter Pan". What was at the bottom of the gangplank? The crocodile. This passerelle has a lot of problems associated with it: there are a lot of crocodiles thrashing around at the bottom of that gangplank.
	What does the Commission regard as advantageous about the use of the passerelle? Amazingly, it is simply this:
	"democratic legitimacy would be increased by making measures on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters subject to co-decision with the European Parliament".
	That is a marker, for one—a good one for the crocodile. It continues:
	"the 'European dimension' would be guaranteed by giving the Commission the right to initiate proposals for legislation on these matters".
	There we are—this is an invitation to the "European dimension". The Commission wants the whole of our criminal procedures and the whole of the Hague programme to be drawn into this enlarged integration process. It wants to increase the European dimension at the expense of the dimension of the British electorate voting in general elections in a secret ballot. It is precisely for that reason that I have been so opposed to these measures over the years. In this instance, qualified majority voting would prevent us from getting our way, which is a reason to oppose these measures in itself. This is not the right time, as the Minister says it is; in this context, the right time is never.
	The Commission also puts forward the following proposal:
	"delays in the legislative process would be reduced by moving to QMV and the quality of legislation would be improved by removing the temptation to adopt the lowest common denominator as the only way to achieve unanimity".
	For heaven's sake—what gobbledegook, what trash.
	My third and last point is about the statement that
	"judicial protection would be improved by giving the European Court of Justice jurisdiction in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters."
	I do not need to enlarge on that any further. I have made my case, but I add one final point. There are many people around today who want to undermine our judicial process and our criminal justice system at its root. That is even coming—and I say this with care and discretion—from those who wish to advocate sharia law at the expense of our judicial system. That in itself is associated with this provision, because those who advocate sharia law are also among those who, regrettably, have fallen into the trap of believing that some of the activities, in relation to terrorism, are justified. This provision is about such questions and I warn the Government to be very careful about undermining our system, either today by failing to be specific and not making it clear that they will use the veto, as they should have done years ago, or by opening the door to some of the undesirable ideas contained in the Hague programme, which should have been repudiated years ago.

Nia Griffith: I welcome the motion and I understand why member states have little enthusiasm for the proposed use of article 42 passarelle in this instance. It is much more important to have continued and improved practical co-operation between EU member states. Rather than wrangling over qualified majority voting on the immensely complex and sensitive subject of justice and home affairs, which is integral to national sovereignty, it would be better to secure the fullest possible co-operation on the ground.
	Although the UK is not in the Schengen area, it is clearly in our interests to collaborate closely with those member states that are, and I am pleased to note that the Government support the plan to register entries to and exits from the Schengen area. We must also heed the concerns of front-line states, especially those on the Mediterranean, which report enormous pressure from hopeful migrants from outside the EU. That is an issue on which we need full co-operation from all member states to ensure that we tackle illegal immigration from outside the EU and have workable systems for managing legal migration. In particular, as we talk about commemorating the abolition of slavery, we must work together to tackle the present-day problem of human trafficking.
	We need to improve co-operation in one specific area. Following a dreadful incident close to my constituency, in which a Polish migrant worker, who had already served a sentence for rape in Poland, raped again, I discovered from the local police that there is no systematic EU-wide system for registering sex offenders. When I raised the issue with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, they were very sympathetic and told me that it is being considered by EU member states. May I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister what progress has been made in developing an effective, EU-wide sex offender register? It is practical co-operation like that that is needed. It is only by having effective systems to keep appropriate tabs on the very few individuals who pose a threat to public safety that we can build up positive attitudes—

David Davies: Rather than having an EU-wide registration system, it would be far simpler to keep such people in prison and not release them early, which is what happens all too often and allows them to commit further horrific acts.

Nia Griffith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I cannot comment on the Polish judicial system and the length of sentence imposed on that occasion. The important point is that in order to ensure that we maintain a positive attitude to the overwhelming majority of hard-working migrants who are law-abiding citizens, we need proper measures in place for the small element who are of a criminal nature.

Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as a system of identifying such people, we also need to be able to refuse them entry? Moreover, if we find that they are here, should we not be able to expel them? Should not this country retain such powers?

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but we would have to be very careful when it came to defining those powers and the particular crimes involved. Names can appear on various lists for different reasons.
	People can now move freely within the EU, and settle and work in any member state. Many British people take advantage of that exciting opportunity, so it is crucial that there is the fullest possible collaboration between member states to deal with the small but significant criminal element that seeks to profit from that freedom. That is why I welcome the motion's emphasis on practical co-operation to deal with transnational challenges such as terrorism and crime.

Wayne David: On the whole, I welcome the Hague programme. It offers a practical approach to many problems facing Britain and Europe today. I also welcome the action plan adopted by the Council of Europe in June 2005.
	The European Scrutiny Committee has studied four communications from the European Commission, one of which was the annual report on the Hague programme. It said that progress had been satisfactory, except with regard to the measures proposed under article 6 of the EU treaty. The main reason for that was the alleged lack of unanimity among Council members, which the European Commission believes makes the case for change to qualified majority voting and the adoption of the passerelle clause under article 42.
	As we have heard, the Government believe that the debate about the passerelle clause has come to an end, but my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was right to point out that the Commission does not agree. Only the other day, Commissioner Frattini declared in a debate in Helsinki that the Commission believes that the debate is very much still going on. The Commission has not modified its position one iota: it still believes very firmly that the Council should adopt the passerelle clause.
	We must be clear about where Parliament stands on this matter. Although I believe that we should adopt the positive elements of the Hague programme, it is important that we reaffirm our opposition to the adoption of the passerelle clause. I have four concerns about this matter that I should like to set out for the House.
	First, opting in to the passerelle clause would have constitutional significance. We must be mindful that the clause could mean that it would not be possible for Britain to have bilateral extradition agreements with third countries. In other words, it might not be possible for us to have an agreement with a third country to extradite terrorists. Given that that is one of the main concerns for most British people, we need to be very careful about adopting such a provision.
	Secondly, it is important to stress that there is no provision for rescinding an opt-in. If we decide to opt in to the passerelle process, we are in there for good—once in, always in. A linked problem is the extension into new areas of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In addition, more powers are implied for the European Commission, as it would be up to the Commission to bring infraction proceedings, and there would also be new measures for the European Parliament.
	Thirdly, the passerelle would put the UK in a weaker negotiating position, because other member states would not take our position seriously unless we had decided to opt in. If we are serious about influencing the European agenda on justice and home affairs, it will be far better for us to oppose the adoption of the passerelle clause.
	My fourth and final point is that if the passerelle clause is adopted, it will undoubtedly introduce a high degree of uncertainty in respect of the future of Europe and the treaties. A linked worry is that because the constitutional treaty has not been agreed—indeed, it was emphatically rejected by two electorates in the EU—measures will be brought in through the back door. The issues that the passerelle clause will open up need to be debated, but fully and frankly as part of treaty negotiations; we should not simply slip into adopting measures by the back door. I am worried about that uncertainty and pre-emption.
	This debate is timely. The Council of Ministers is meeting on 4 and 5 December and as Commissioner Frattini made clear, the Commission is still arguing four-square for the measure, although it recognises that some member states, especially the UK, have strong reservations. Nevertheless, the Commission has not given up hope of agreement on a matter that it considers crucial. It is, therefore, important that we, as a national Parliament, send a clear message to the Government. There can be no question of equivocation and no suggestion of capitulation or compromise—we must stand four-square in our opposition. That is what we want and I hope that our position will be maintained by the Government.

Joan Ryan: With leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate, which has been useful and comes at a helpful time, given that the Justice and Home Affairs Council will meet next week.
	We take the Select Committee report seriously and are pleased to work with the Committee on these matters. The process is helpful and we value it. The Government are broadly supportive of the principles of the Hague programme as it stands; it was a good outcome for the UK when it was negotiated, and it remains so. In general, the format is right for the organisation of justice and home affairs work over the next few years. However, commitment to a programme as a whole does not mean that we must agree with the detail of all the proposals.
	I understand Members' concerns about the passerelle. I made it clear to the Committee that the Government's concerns featured prominently in negotiations on the justice and home affairs aspects of the draft constitutional treaty. I pointed out that
	"the UK identified a number of substantive concerns, including the potential impact on national security, the extension of external competencies and the need for safeguards such as the emergency brake".
	Those concerns remain valid, and given the strength with which Members raised them today, it is right to reiterate them.
	I take on board Members' concerns about whether the position of the Commission has changed. However, there can be no move to the passerelle, and no move of measures from pillar 3 to pillar 1, without a unanimous vote at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. It is not relevant to talk of the back door. It has always been possible to move things from one pillar to another through a unanimous vote. It is not illegitimate that that issue should be raised, but that does not mean that that is what is going to happen. The emphasis on practical co-operation is right. That is where we want to be and that is where we want to direct our effort and see results. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 130.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 11222/06, Commission Communication: Implementing the Hague Programme: the way forward, and 11228/06 and Addenda 1-2, Commission Report on the implementation of the Hague Programme for 2005; and takes note that the discussions at the Tampere Justice and Home Affairs Informal Council showed that there was little support amongst Member States for the proposed use of the Article 42 passerelle; and furthermore supports the Government's position that this is not the right time to focus on institutional change, and that the European Union's priority for Justice and Home Affairs should instead be on developing practical co-operation to combat the transitional challenges of terrorism, organised crime and migration.

Members' Fund (Discretionary Payments)

Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
	That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1st October 2006 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948:
	(1) the whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) the whole of the Treasury contribution to the Fund.
	The motion gives effect to the appropriation to the House of Commons Members' fund of the contribution that all Members make from their salaries every month and the sum of £215,000 from the Members' estimate, to which the motion refers as "the Treasury contribution". The fund is essentially a benevolent fund for former Members and their dependants who have fallen on hard times and need financial assistance, and payments are made with regard to individual circumstances.
	The fund is governed by various Acts that stipulate the basis on which payments can be made and the amounts payable. Some payments are known as "as of right" payments; others are awarded at the trustees' discretion. "As of right" beneficiaries are such because they are either not entitled to a parliamentary pension because they left the House before 1964, or because, as widows and widowers of former Members, they have their small PCPF—parliamentary contributory pension fund—pensions topped up. Some beneficiaries receive discretionary payments because of hardship and their personal circumstances. These are usually one-off grants to improve quality of life—perhaps to facilitate a minor home adaptation.
	The fund currently has 100 beneficiaries. The average value of the recurring payments is a modest £2,000 per annum. A handful of one-off grants are made each year with an average value of only about £5,000. Relatively small sums can make a great difference in some circumstances.
	I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my fellow trustees for all the work that they undertake on the fund's behalf, which undoubtedly involves more of their time than they were led to believe when they became trustees.

Nigel Griffiths: On behalf of the House, I express our gratitude to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the other trustees for the work that they do. The right hon. Gentleman lucidly explained to the House the purpose of the fund and the work of the trustees. Their work on behalf of the House, and in particular on behalf of former Members who may be in more straitened circumstances and their widows and relatives, is extremely important. It is somewhat unsung, but we are grateful. If they did not realise that it would take up so much of their time, that demonstrates to other right hon. and hon. Members that they are paying detailed attention to some vexing cases and some worthy cases. I support the motion.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Rail Performance

[Relevant documents: The Fourteenth Report of the Transport Committee, Session 2005-06, on Passenger Rail Franchising (HC1354).]

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	Rail performance is a story of recovery. Five years ago only 75 per cent. of trains arrived on time. In the year to March 2006, more than 85 per cent. were on time, and the figure continues to rise. Many train operators now regularly achieve 90 per cent. or better, and this improvement has been secured against a background of strong growth through investment, getting the organisation right, and listening to passengers.
	In 2001, after the Hatfield accident, punctuality had fallen to 75 per cent. The industry faced other problems which had dragged down performance, particularly in organisation and structure. Since Hatfield, however, punctuality has improved consistently. The latest provisional figures for the year to October show 88 per cent. of trains arriving punctually at their final destination. Punctuality and reliability are now at their highest level for six years, and this been achieved at a time of significant growth in traffic. That is best illustrated by the numbers involved.
	Rail passenger journeys have grown by 35 per cent. since 1996-97. In 2003-04, for the first time since 1961, more than 1 billion rail journeys were made. In 2005-06, the rail industry delivered another record breaking year. Nearly 1.1 billion rail passenger journeys were completed—the most since 1959, making Britain's one of the fastest growing railways in Europe. Rail passenger kilometres have also increased, by 34 per cent. since 1996-97. The amount of freight moved by rail has increased by 22 per cent. in the past five years. In the face of these welcome trends, performance has been lifted from its low point five years ago, and that improvement has been maintained.
	The past few years have been a period of change and renewal, with unprecedented amounts of money being invested in the rail industry.

Mark Lazarowicz: One of the routes that has seen that increase is the east coast main line, on which I am a regular traveller. My hon. Friend will be aware of the speculation about the future of the franchise because of difficulties affecting the parent company. Will the Minister assure the House and my constituents that whatever happens on the east coast main line they will not have a worse service as a result of any changes and that the Government will ensure that the quality of service on that route does not deteriorate?

Tom Harris: I agree with my hon. Friend that there has certainly been speculation about GNER. All the commitments of the franchise have been kept up to date and I do not foresee any diminution in service to passengers on the GNER line.

Tobias Ellwood: Before the Minister moves on, will he say whether he is satisfied with the levels of freight that are going through the channel tunnel?

Tom Harris: Obviously the Government take a great interest in the amount of freight going through the channel tunnel. Presumably the hon. Gentleman is referring to the imminent removal of a certain level of grant—as from today—that has been payable over the last few years. He will appreciate that the Government must respect the terms of EU legislation. The current payments made to EWSI are deemed to be company specific and cannot be extended beyond today. However, negotiations within the industry are continuing. I am convinced that freight will continue to grow and to move through the channel tunnel. It is in everybody's interest that freight be moved through the tunnel on a commercial basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his party would agree.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to expand on this point. The channel tunnel was developed to cater for about 10 million tonnes of freight every year. We are averaging between 1 million and 3 million tonnes, so we are under capacity. What are the Government doing to improve on that?

Tom Harris: The Government are absolutely committed to increasing the amount of freight that is moved by rail not only through the channel tunnel but throughout the UK. Moves are afoot to come to a proper agreement between EWSI and the channel tunnel—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I may be the only person in the Chamber who does not understand what the Minister is saying, but I am a bit anxious when initials are used. Could the Minister bear that in mind when he makes his remarks?

Tom Harris: That is an excellent point. Since I was appointed to this position I have lambasted officials repeatedly and asked them to spell out acronyms which until recently I did not understand. That shows how quickly departmental-itis sets in to every new Minister and I apologise to the House. EWSI is the freight company England, Wales and Scotland International. I will avoid certain acronyms in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Without being pedantic, when the Minister has explained the acronym once we can all allow him to use the initials thereafter.

Tom Harris: This is indeed a learning experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will bear your instructions in mind.
	Freight is important to the UK economy and the Government are committed to encouraging freight movements through the tunnel and elsewhere. Once we can get freight movements through the tunnel on a commercial basis, it must be on a sustainable basis. From then on I expect volumes to increase in the years to come.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the Government's support for rail freight. Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem in getting the sort of rail freight that we want through the channel tunnel is the lack of a proper delivery system on the British side? The network must be improved and enhanced specifically to deliver freight to this island.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend has long experience of this subject and I bow to his greater wisdom. There are other problems involved in freight movements through the channel tunnel, not least of which are the charges which Eurotunnel attempts to impose on commercial traffic. I am optimistic that in due course those problems can be sorted out, but I accept what my hon. Friend says.
	The average age of rolling stock has come down dramatically. Railtrack has been replaced by Network Rail and we have restructured the industry, ensuring more effective management of the rail network as a whole.

David Wright: On the management of the network, will my hon. Friend take a close interest in the proposal to reinstate the service from Wrexham, Shrewsbury and Telford down to London Marylebone? We lost that many years ago when it was an Intercity service. There is now a private proposal to bring it back to take passengers from Telford into London. The proposal has to go to the Office of Rail Regulation, but it would be helpful if my hon. Friend would take a close interest in it.

Tom Harris: Thanks to my hon. Friend's efforts, I have taken a close interest in the open access application to run direct services from Wrexham through Shrewsbury and down to Marylebone. As he knows, open access operators receive no subsidy from the Government, but they do not have to pay any track access charges. The decision about whether to admit an open access operator depends heavily on whether its revenue stream will have a significant impact on existing franchises. My hon. Friend understands that that decision has to be taken by the Office of Rail Regulation, and I cannot influence it in any way. If the proposal is successful, I am sure that the new service will provide an excellent addition to the railway services already provided to his constituents. He has campaigned extremely effectively on the issue.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in replying further to the question that I asked in Transport questions the other day. He will know that the rolling stock on Island Line is former Northern line tube stock dating back at least to the 1950s and probably to the 1930s, and as such is in dire need of investment. The community rail partnership that is proposed for Island Line cuts across the new combined franchise that has just been awarded to Stagecoach, under which it promises to invest in rolling stock. Can the Minister assure me that the possibility of moving Island Line from the franchise into a community rail partnership will not prevent Stagecoach from investing in new rolling stock, as it promised?

Tom Harris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention on this matter, which was raised last week and is close to his heart. If he will forgive me, I cannot offer a specific answer on investment, but I will be happy to write to him.

Mark Lazarowicz: Turning from the east coast main line to the west coast main line, my hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns about the possible new franchise for the services that link Edinburgh to Manchester. One of the proposals would result in the service being operated as part of a trans-Pennine franchise. That would mean that journey times, which are not particularly fast anyway, would be liable to be extended further. Is it not ironic that that would make it quicker to get by train from Edinburgh to London than from Edinburgh to Manchester? Is not that against the direction that we want to take, in encouraging people to use rail services instead of travelling by air for short distances such as Edinburgh to Manchester?

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend is right to say that journey times are an essential part of encouraging people to move from road to rail. I am convinced that by the time the three new franchises that are out to tender—west midlands, east midlands and new cross-country—are implemented, the re-pathing of train routes in all those areas will result in increased capacity and increased passenger capacity. On timings, I do not have confirmation of those figures at my fingertips, but I am happy to look into it.

David Wright: Does the Minister agree that on new franchises such as the west midlands it will be important to focus on how services rotate around other transport hubs, particularly Birmingham international airport in the west midlands? We need a better service from Shropshire and mid-Wales into the international airport to ensure that passengers can be moved more effectively. Those connections are not in particularly good order at the moment—many trains stop at Wolverhampton and Birmingham New Street—and we need a better service through from Telford to the airport. Will my hon. Friend take that into consideration when he considers the franchises?

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend is right that there is a major problem affecting capacity—not on individual trains, but around the network surrounding Birmingham New Street. The new cross-country franchise is designed to adjust and improve that position. I am quite confident that, by the time the new cross-country timetable begins, significant changes to the way in which existing capacity can be maximised will have been made. I am sure that that will be recognised by passenger groups as well as passengers themselves.

Eric Martlew: I am sorry to intervene again; the Minister is being very generous. The passenger watchdog has condemned the decision to cut trains coming from Scotland, via my Carlisle constituency, to the south coast and the south-west. Passengers will not thank us for sending them to Birmingham New Street—probably the worst station in Britain. I apologise to any Birmingham Members, but it is so bad that it will cost a fortune to upgrade it. Changing the franchise at this time will, I am sorry to say, only stir up trouble for the Government in future.

Tom Harris: I disagree. The passenger flow figures that I have seen show that fewer passengers will need to change at Birmingham New Street. In fact, very few passengers travelling from the south-west up to Birmingham New Street continue their journey beyond it. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I hope that in the near future we will be able to look again at the figures and see the results of the new cross-country franchise. We should be able to see whether the Department for Transport's predictions proved correct as well as optimistic.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way one more time?

Tom Harris: Once more, but then I really must make some progress.

Clive Betts: We have dealt with the west coast main line and the east coast main line, so there should be some time to deal with the Midland Mainline, which I am sure the Minister will recognise has achieved very good punctuality figures—probably the best of any inter-city train operator. The problem is that it achieves those punctuality figures with very slow journey speeds in comparison with the east and west coast main lines and very low levels of investment in the track. In considering the new franchise arrangements for the Midland Mainline, will the Minister look closely at journey times? Will he also consider providing support for Network Rail, which is now looking into a project of enhancement, costing only £85 million, to begin to start reducing the journey times to Sheffield and other cities along the route? That compares with hundreds of millions spent on the east coast main line and £1 billion on the west coast main line.

Tom Harris: One of the more attractive features of this job is that one quickly gets to become very casual about figures such as £85 million, describing them as "only" such an amount. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, reconfiguration of timetables has a part to play in improving train performance. He is absolutely right about that, but he should also be reminded that infrastructure improvements are not proposed as part of franchises, but left to Network Rail.
	I was talking about investment being essential for providing reliable services into the future. A good example is the west coast main line project, the largest project that the railway has seen for many years. We are now seeing the benefits of the £8 billion being spent on modernising the route. Since the first major stage was delivered, we have seen faster and more frequent services, and there will be more to come in 2008-09.
	Business on the route is growing quickly following the first phases of the upgrade in 2004 and 2005. The final phase is due in December 2008, and major schemes totalling £1.1 billion are now being implemented. Key outputs will include 50 per cent. more seats, faster journey times—which will include 30 minutes off the London to Glasgow route, I am happy to say—and much improved weekend services. With the introduction of new timetables, performance has already recovered, with the route now enjoying more than 86 per cent. punctuality.

Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister give way?

Tom Harris: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make some progress.
	Elsewhere, the network south of the River Thames has benefited from the upgrading of the electrical power supply, enabling better timekeeping and facilitating the introduction of new rolling stock. From the passenger's point of view, rolling stock is very tangible evidence of our record investment. The average age of rolling stock on the network has come down from 20 years in 2001-02 to only 13 years in 2005-06. In addition, 40 per cent. of rolling stock has been replaced in the last 10 years, and with 4,000 new trains and carriages we now have one of the youngest rolling stock fleets in Europe, as well as one of the fastest growing.
	For performance, this often means better acceleration and faster point-to-point times. With increasing numbers of passengers, however, it can also mean longer station stops. It is therefore all the more important to get the timetables right, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) earlier. With timetabling, the significant gains in punctuality made by some train operators and Network Rail in updating timetable structure and time allowances indicate further opportunity for performance improvement. Network Rail has a published programme progressively to review timetables on other routes. More realistic timetabling has contributed to the fact that, on many lines, up to 90 per cent. of passenger trains are now running on time.
	While making timetables more resilient, however, it is important that the right balance is struck between the time a journey takes, and ensuring that trains run on time. The Department therefore continues to play an important part in specifying minimum levels of train service provision.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has been talking about investment. One of the areas of investment that I would like him to consider is that of disabled access. It is no good having tremendously young carriages running on time if people, such as some of those who use Leominster station, cannot get out of the train if they are in a wheelchair. I would be most grateful if the Minister looked into that matter, through his Department.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is, and certainly should be, a priority for the Department. He will also be aware of the access for all programme that the Government announced recently, which has a £370 million budget for improving accessibility at stations throughout the network.
	Network Rail replaced Railtrack in 2002, taking over responsibility for operating, maintaining and renewing the network to meet the demands of rail users. Performance, both by Network Rail and by the train operators, has improved progressively since then. The 2004 White Paper supported performance improvement by making Network Rail the single point of accountability for rail performance. This has given it leadership of operational performance on the network as a whole and restores accountability to where it is best exercised. Network Rail produces, and shares within the industry, detailed data on punctuality, so that all parties can work together to tackle the causes of delay.
	Meanwhile, responsibility for setting the strategic direction of the rail industry now rests, as it should, with the Government. We have clear agreements with each part of the industry, and we set levels of public expenditure.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister ask Network Rail to look once again at whether punctuality targets are appropriate on every part of the railway? Island Line is the most punctual service in the country, but it often achieves that by steaming out of Ryde pierhead station just as the ferry is coming in, when the ferry is a little late. People are more interested in connectivity than in punctuality.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right, although I suspect that part of the reason for the performance of Island Line is that it has a very simple structure compared with certain other franchises. He makes a valid point about which, I suspect, South West Trains and the ferry operators should be talking to each other. If the ferry timetable were changed, that might have a beneficial effect for his constituents.
	The Office of Rail Regulation continues to monitor performance and is alert to any systemic problems that might threaten continued improvement. It holds Network Rail to account for its own causes of delay. In the event of poor performance by Network Rail, the Office of Rail Regulation has enforcement powers, ensuring that train operators can provide a reliable service to the travelling public on a well-performing infrastructure. However, I remain concerned to ensure that performance, and its impact on customers, is closely monitored.
	The Department for Transport sets its own public service agreement target to improve the punctuality and reliability of rail services, in discussion with senior representatives of the industry. Every four weeks, I meet senior industry representatives and chair a discussion in which we examine progress in rail performance and key improvement activities. Although major advances have been made, it is important to keep the momentum going. The industry knows that it must continue to plan for further improvement and that it is subject to challenge if its plans do not bear fruit. As part of its accountability for whole-industry performance, Network Rail joins train operators to plan performance improvement at individual operator level. The day-to-day responsibility for running trains on time is thus in the hands of the people best placed to deliver it.
	There has been significant improvement in train performance since the Hatfield accident in 2001. It is quite clear that Government investment has contributed to the outstanding railway network in this country today. Despite the criticisms that are understandably, but unjustifiably, aimed at the industry, we have the possibility of a healthy and growing network that serves more passengers every day.

Mark Lazarowicz: I endorse what my hon. Friend says about Government investment in the railway network. As he has pointed out, it is making a real difference on the west coast main line, but on the question of growth of the network, is not it also time to consider a new north-south high-speed line, which would relieve capacity difficulties on other sections and provide faster services between the north and south of the UK? When is the Eddington report, which is addressing that and other transport issues, likely to be published?

Tom Harris: I can satisfy my hon. Friend on that score. I understand that the Eddington report is to be published tomorrow, although I could be wrong on that. I saw all those blank faces and wondered whether I had been given the wrong information.
	Network Rail's enlarged role in managing network operations following the 2004 White Paper "The Future of Rail" is also enabling better service recovery from routine disruption. Where performance remains poor on local routes, arrangements are available to put remedial measures in place. Work by the industry to reduce the impact of seasonal bad weather, such as the so-called wrong type of snow that is often referred to—

Tobias Ellwood: Leaves.

Tom Harris: Indeed, the wrong type of leaves. That phrase was never used, but that is another matter. That work has contributed to improved performance and only a few issues remain. Senior rail industry representatives meet as part of a national taskforce to work together to find joint solutions to problems as they emerge. A new railway operational code has been established, so there is an agreed way to restore services quickly where there is disruption.
	I want to talk a little about the joint control centres, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has written about recently. Control centres are crucial to ensuring that services run well on the day. The joint control centre at Waterloo has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who spoke yesterday in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. They have talked about there being a blame attribution desk; I believe that phrase was used. Unfortunately for them, the blame attribution desk does not exist.
	There is a delay attribution desk, which provides a sensible mechanism to ensure that delays are identified and that whoever is responsible for correcting something has it brought to their attention so that the delay is dealt with quickly. The industry has welcomed that, and it has been extremely effective over the past few years.
	The White Paper "The Future of Rail" recognised the importance of integrated working, and Network Rail has plans to establish joint control centres with train operators wherever feasible. The way we let franchises also has a part to play. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is in her place. I have read her Committee's report extremely carefully, and the Department will produce a formal response in due course. Of course, I do not intend any of my remarks today to be a formal response to that report.
	The Department is committed to raising and maintaining improvement in operational performance through that process. In the arrangements for rail franchises, the Department continues to address operators' performance to ensure that minimum levels are contractually specified. Performance commitments are contractualised when a franchise is awarded and monitored throughout the life of the contract. It is important that when franchises are remapped or re-let, any short-term effects on performance are carefully monitored and addressed by local management. We are encouraging operators and Network Rail to remain vigilant in all those examples.
	To help to maintain and improve performance and reliability into the future, we need to consider performance as part of the overall strategy for the railway. We intend to publish a long-term vision for the railways alongside a high-level output specification in summer 2007.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend make it clear, however, that if for any reason a franchise must be renegotiated, it should not be renegotiated on a lower financial base simply because the company concerned is in financial difficulty? The commitment to the passenger and to maintenance of high standards is what is important, not the problems of individual companies.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I reassure her not only on the question of renegotiation of any contracts with a lower financial specification, but that the Department will not renegotiate franchises where an operator gets into financial difficulties.

Eric Martlew: Is not it a fact, however, that a franchisee can give back the franchise to the Government at a fairly minimal cost? Ministers do not therefore have a strong bargaining position.

Tom Harris: A franchisee's financial liabilities must be met before it walks away from a contract. I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not mentioning any specific companies to which his comments might refer.
	We intend to publish a long-term vision for the railways—the high-level output specification—next year. The HLOS is a significant innovation. For the first time, Government will lay out clearly what is expected from the railway—not in detail, as that will be for the industry to finalise, but requirements for performance, safety and capacity will be set.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tom Harris: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall make some progress.
	As performance is such an important measure of the quality of people's journeys, it will be a key area covered by the HLOS. Passengers want—and respond to—better, more reliable services. A reliable, punctual service is one of the principal reasons that customer satisfaction, according to the national passenger survey, is now at an all-time high. This year's figures show that overall satisfaction is up. Four out of five passengers were satisfied with their overall journey—the best level ever recorded by the national passenger survey.
	Passengers want reliability, which is vital in supporting the economy and absorbing the growth in the number of people who want to use railways. We will continue to plan for that, and we will work with the industry in delivering it.

Chris Grayling: This debate on an extremely important issue for the country comes, ironically, in a week that has seen yet another round of well-above-inflation train fare increases. Although the Minister portrayed happy passengers, this week—believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—he will find a lot of very unhappy passengers. I shall deal with some of the reasons for those fare increases in a moment.

Bill Wiggin: On the subject of unhappy passengers, may I draw the House's attention to the experience of my constituent, Mr. Edward Bulmer, who is beyond irate? Every time he takes the train, which he chooses to do for environmental reasons, the connection at Newport fails, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said, adding another hour to his journey. Does my hon. Friend agree that connectivity is a fundamental problem, and that buying a ticket and not being able to make one's journey does not represent good value for money?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. On issues of connectivity, he should look as much to the Department for Transport team as to the rail companies. Few members of the public today fully understand the degree of operational control that the Department for Transport has over the day-to-day workings of the railways. The Department and its team specify train timetables—although not to the point of stating which minute of the hour a train must depart—the mix of services and what routes get services, and they create the framework in which certain services are not provided.

Tom Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the event of the Conservatives' coming to power at some point in the next few years, he as Secretary of State for Transport will not impose a minimum specification for levels of service in any franchise?

Chris Grayling: I look forward to doing the job. What I can confirm is that I do not think it is the role of Ministers to decide which station in Oxfordshire is given a Sunday service. I do not think it is the role of Ministers to decide detailed service configurations. I would prefer to create a world in which we would trust rail professionals to decide how our railways work best, rather than entrusting the job of deciding the configuration of services to a team of civil servants.
	Let me tell the House a story that dates from the days of the Government's Strategic Rail Authority rather than from those of the current team in the Department for Transport. While drafting their first timetable in the same detail that the Department now employs, those civil servants actually managed to make two trains head towards each other on the same piece of track in the Cotswolds. That is very relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I understand that the team of civil servants who write timetables today were originally in the SRA.

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman said that if a train operator wanted to remove a Sunday service, that would be a matter for the industry in which politicians should not interfere. Is he seriously suggesting that if a local community were due to lose a Sunday service and people wanted to lobby the local politician, the politician should turn around and say "That is a matter for the market"?

Chris Grayling: Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of the great works of the Department. Pilning station in Gloucestershire—which is just north of Bristol, on the line between Bristol and Cardiff—has a change of service as a result of the new Great Western franchise, to a specification set by the Government. Do Members know what the new service will involve? Two trains, one each way, not per day but per week: one on Saturday mornings and one on Saturday afternoons. Who in his right mind would come up with such a service specification for a railway station like that? The answer is the Ministers in office today, but what we heard from this Minister was a long list of plaudits for his Department's strategy and the work done by Network Rail.

Clive Efford: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered my question. He implies that if South West Trains wanted to introduce a service of that kind, it would be purely at the behest of the private sector and no one would have any comeback. There would be no accountability, and no one to whom people could apply for redress.

Chris Grayling: There are, and should be, proper mechanisms to cover the wholesale closure of services, but—I accept that this is a point of dispute between my party and the hon. Gentleman's—I do not think it appropriate for Ministers to make detailed operational decisions about train service configurations at individual stations. There is a world of difference between setting minimum service requirements and making detailed decisions about the pattern of services.

Tom Harris: I hope that you will forgive me for intervening again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that I have already taken up a good deal of time.
	Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only do we specify minimum levels of services to a lesser extent than the Strategic Rail Authority, but the SRA specified timetables to a lesser extent than his party did when it was in charge of the railways? I would guess not.

Chris Grayling: In the days of Conservative government, Ministers did not decide whether Pilning had two trains a week or not, and I think it absurd that that is the position now.

Eric Martlew: rose—

Chris Grayling: I will give way once more, but then I must make progress.

Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is very gracious in giving way. Will he take this opportunity to apologise for the Conservatives' privatisation of the railways, and does he realise that an apology will not make the people forgive or forget what they did?

Chris Grayling: We can always count on the enthusiasm of the Government, and the Labour party in general, for debating the issues of 10 years ago rather than the issues of the future. It is true that there have been some real highs and lows on the railways in the decade since privatisation, but, as the Minister rightly said, the practical reality is that today, 10 years after privatisation, the railways carry more passengers each year than a rather larger network did before the Beeching cuts in the 1960s.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that the shadow Minister's embarrassment saves me from having to say anything more.

Chris Grayling: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I thought I had turned off my mobile telephone.
	The achievement I was referring to is an astounding one, given that at the time of privatisation 10 years ago the received wisdom about our rail network was that it was in a long spiral of decline—that there would be a long decline in passenger usage and rail freight. Those have been reversed over the past 10 years. As the Minister rightly said, we have a growing railway, but that—particularly when it has grown as much as ours over the past 10 years—creates its own set of problems. That is where the challenge of the next 10 years lies.

Kelvin Hopkins: We have heard the argument many times that passenger growth has somehow been a result of privatisation, but it has happened in spite of privatisation, and in spite of massive fare rises and the costs of construction and new track. That argument is a non-sequitur; passenger numbers have risen because the roads are clogged and more people rightly want to travel by train.

Chris Grayling: There is a wide variety of reasons why railway travel has grown in the past 10 years, but the practical reality is that it has grown. The last 10 years have been a successful decade for the railways, and the railways now face a significant set of challenges that did not exist 10 years ago.
	I caution Ministers not to get too enthusiastic about the improvements that there have been. Punctuality has not improved just because trains are running more reliably. Timetables have also been stretched. My morning train used to be timetabled to reach Waterloo in 42 minutes. It is now timetabled to take 46 minutes. Unsurprisingly, it is not late as often as it used to be.
	Let me also offer the example of my experience of timetabling on the Great North Eastern Railway route. I went up to Newcastle in the summer, and I checked on the national rail timetable website what train I should take. To my surprise, it told me to change trains at York—to get a Virgin Trains train there, rather than take a GNER train for the entire journey. I was puzzled by that, so when I got on the train I asked the guard why on earth the website had given me that advice. He said, "Ah, that is because we add an extra 10 minutes to the timetable between Durham and Newcastle so that we can catch up on any timetable problems we might have."
	The truth is that, although there have been improvements in performance, in some cases they have been created by extending the timetable. Therefore, they do not amount to simply an improvement in the reliability of the railway. There might now be a more realistic timetable, but the point I have made has to be taken into account when Ministers say to us that the railway is performing dramatically better.

David Wright: Are not the examples that the hon. Gentleman is giving us commercial decisions to do with managing the timetable and the network effectively? I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is raising those examples as issues considering what he told us about five minutes ago: timetables are irrelevant as far as his party is concerned and they should be in the hands of the rail-operating companies. Therefore, why is he raising the point?

Chris Grayling: I am raising it because it is a practical fact. We have heard the Minister setting out that there have been significant improvements in reliability. That is the case, and we should offer our congratulations to those in the rail industry who have delivered improvements in performance over the past five years, after a very difficult period for the industry. However, in some cases those performance improvements need to be somewhat qualified by the significant changes that have been made to the timetable.

David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling: No, I shall make some progress now, because other Members will want to speak.
	The big challenge our railways face today is very immediate, and it is too low down Ministers' priority list. It is hard to see how the current network can continue to absorb the projected growth in both freight and passenger numbers, and the increased growth that it is getting year by year, without serious measures being taken to ease constraints on capacity.
	The forecast for the next few years for the rail industry is not attractive to the travelling public. According to the rail regulator, there will be no growth in passenger-train kilometres between now and 2014, but according to both Network Rail and the train operators, passenger growth during those years is likely to exceed 30 per cent. The small print of the new franchise arrangements means that it is almost certain that unregulated fares will rise sharply year by year: this year it is three times the rate of inflation, and last January there were fare increases of up to 10 per cent. We are seeing the brutal reality of that on some parts of the network.
	This summer, we discovered that the Government and one of the major rail companies had had secret talks about pushing up fares and pricing passengers off busy London commuter trains to try to tackle the overcrowding problem. Ironically, the route in question was the Thameslink route, for which the Government's 10-year plan promised improvements by now. We were told in the 10-year plan that the Thameslink 2000 project would be open by now and would provide longer trains and more space for passengers—another example of a promise that has come to nothing.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that asking passengers, particularly on commuter routes into London, to pay fare increases and then expecting them to travel in conditions that we would not legally allow for animals cannot possibly be a way to achieve better performance?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the issue that lies ahead for the rail industry and the Government. They talk about improvements in performance, but our trains are increasingly overcrowded and action is not being taken to ease the pressure. Our rail network seems to be expected to absorb the growth forecast as a result of increased economic activity and the increasing numbers of people coming to live in this country. The practical reality is that our rail network will be an unhappy place for passengers in the next decade if action is not taken to ease the capacity problem. The situation is unsustainable. It is not realistic to expect the passengers of the next decade to travel on increasingly overcrowded trains; nor will we get freight off the roads and people to leave their cars at home if the rail network is under such pressure.
	We must remember that all this is happening at a time when the taxpayer's spending on the railways is at a record level. Five years ago, the subsidy for our railways was just over £1 billion a year; this year, it is in excess of £5 billion. I see no sign that the Government or Network Rail—the two organisations with the power to do something about the problem—are really getting to grips with the challenge ahead.
	The irony is, of course, that six years ago the Government did promise that they would get to grips with the problem. The 10-year plan for transport, which was their strategy to ease congestion on our transport system, was ambitious stuff. We were promised wholesale change. The Deputy Prime Minister was absolutely clear about its goals. He said in its foreword:
	"Now we have a 10 Year Plan that will deliver the scale of resources required to put integrated transport into practice. It will also deliver radical improvements for passengers, motorists, business—and all of us as citizens concerned about congestion, safety and a better environment."
	The document promised a transformation on the railways. It promised the modernisation of our main rail arteries, such as the west coast main line, by 2010. We can put a tick in the box for that one. The east coast main line —[Interruption.] I thought that I had already turned off my phone, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I do apologise. The east coast main line has been forgotten. The Government are about to start improving the Great Western main line, but there will be no improvement in capacity. We were promised upgrades to our suburban railways in London, Birmingham and Manchester. We were promised less congestion, more rail freight and upgrades of the routes to our major ports.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Member who is now holding the electrical device that if it is uncontrollable perhaps it could be taken out of the Chamber now and left outside, where it may do what it likes?

Chris Grayling: We were promised the Thameslink 2000 project, and we were even promised that Crossrail would be open by 2010. The truth is that virtually none of that is going to happen.
	The Government talk endlessly about the need for a strategic approach to our railways. They even set up the Strategic Rail Authority in a blaze of publicity. It was commended by the previous Secretary of State, who said that it had already brought coherence to long-term planning, and that the new management was making a real difference. Then, it was scrapped by that same Secretary of State. Instead, we have Ministers taking decisions on what happens to rail passengers throughout the country.

David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should do more to encourage people to book transport on the telephone, or by the internet?

Chris Grayling: I am not sure that politicians should be playing such an active role in micro-managing the railway. I have no doubt that the rail companies are perfectly capable of taking decisions on how best to provide booking services for their customers.
	It was Ministers who decided to downgrade Melksham station, in Wiltshire. It was Ministers who decided that there should no longer be rail services from Walsall from Wolverhampton. It was Ministers who decided that there should be no Sunday services at many stations in Oxfordshire. It is Ministers who have decided to start running down the railway line from Oxford to Bicester—an area that we know is blighted by traffic jams.
	The problem goes deeper. Not only are the Government failing to fulfil their promises to deal with the capacity needs of the future, but they are responsible for the changes to the rail franchising system that represent the ultimate stealth tax on passengers. Let us consider the case of South West Trains. The Minister and I have had exchanges about the award of the South West Trains franchise and the so-called 20 per cent. increase in passenger capacity. Let me explain the reality of that to the Minister now that we have a little more time than during Question Time.
	Today's applicants for a passenger franchise do not bid to run a business: they bid to operate a detailed specification and timetable provided by the Government. They bid blind and, if they are the incumbents, they risk losing their business overnight. Because they have relatively little flexibility, financially and operationally, the winners tend to be those who squeeze the most out of the system. In the case of South West Trains, that means squeezing the most possible people into its trains and handing over the fare money to the Treasury. What is the consequence for passengers? Well, South West Trains bid more than £1 billion for its franchise and it will have a severe task hitting that target.
	Where will the mysterious 20 per cent. increase in capacity come from? It is true that the company is buying 10 new coaches for the Windsor line, but they will come nowhere near providing a 20 per cent. increase in capacity. Instead, it will come from ripping out seats on suburban trains to create more standing room. On medium-distance routes, it will come from removing toilets to create extra room for passengers and, on longer distance routes to the south coast, it involves scrapping the still modern and comfortable express train units that have two plus two, four-across seat configurations plus tables and replacing them with the more cramped inner-suburban five-seat configuration trains, cramming more passengers into the same space. None of that represents an enhancement of the service for passengers.
	It is not an enhancement of the service to ask passengers who are travelling from the north-west to the south coast to get off at Birmingham New Street and cross over several platforms to change trains. New Street is probably Britain's most overcrowded station, but the imperative for improvement comes not from a lack of platforms but from the available space on the concourse. Only this Government would think that it was a good idea to have more people get off at Birmingham New Street to change trains —[ Interruption. ] Is the Minister willing to intervene to tell us that that will not happen? Hon. Members would be delighted if that were the case.

Tom Harris: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman inadvertently to mislead the House, so I shall repeat what I said earlier. We expect that the new franchise will mean fewer passengers having to change at New Street, not more.

Chris Grayling: Let us be clear on that point, because the issue has caused great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Long distance through services from the north to the south of England using the cross-country franchise and passing through Birmingham will have to terminate there, instead of continuing to their destinations. Will the Minister confirm that some services that are now through services will become divided services, as part of the refinement of the franchise?

Tom Harris: I confirm that some services that are now through services will terminate at Birmingham New Street—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but other services that now terminate at that station will no longer have to do so. Overall, we expect that fewer passengers—I repeat, because the hon. Gentleman has failed to comprehend the point, fewer passengers—will have to change trains at Birmingham New Street once the three new franchises are in operation.

Chris Grayling: Well, I am interested to hear that reassurance, because at my party's conference in October senior executives who are very close to the bidding process and the current franchise expressed their profound concern about the change in the pattern of services. They felt that the trains in question should not terminate in Birmingham. I am delighted if the Minister is refining the service pattern to improve the situation, and I look forward to hearing from those involved in running the franchise that they are satisfied that those changes have eased the problem.
	My final point concerns the decision yesterday by the Office of Rail Regulation to refer the rolling stock industry to the Office of Fair Trading. It is not for us as politicians to pass detailed judgments on the decisions of the regulatory authorities, but I want to ask the Minister a few questions that I hope he will answer when he winds up the debate.
	The Minister will be aware of the pressures facing our train construction industry. He is right to say that the change in regulations requiring train operators to replace slam-door stock over the past three years or so has led to significant additional investment in new capacity. There has been a substantial bulge in the supply of new trains to the network but, after that boom period, the remaining rail manufacturers in this country now face something of a bust. I am sure that no hon. Member wants our train construction industry to disappear, but there is a distinct dearth of orders to keep those very valuable factories open over the next few years.
	The Government and the regulatory authorities have decided to pursue a full investigation of the ROSCOs. That is a big problem for the manufacturers: it will almost certainly involve a two-year moratorium on the ordering of new trains, as the ROSCOs will be uncertain about their future business and therefore reluctant to invest. What consideration has the Minister given to that problem? What discussions has he had with the train manufacturers? How can he ensure that there is no hiatus as a result of the investigation?
	The rail industry has had many successes over recent years, as well as difficult times and some failures, but it is what happens in the next 10 years that matters now. For passengers and freight operators, the coming decade is likely to be a period of increasing capacity constraints, congestion and overcrowding, and there is precious little sign that the Government will act to deal with the problem before it becomes acute.
	It is not too late to make a difference, but Ministers—who have taken it upon themselves to have a central role in running our railway—must take decisions and act quickly. So far, the decisions are not forthcoming: projects are sitting on the shelf and the things that could make a difference are not happening. If Ministers do not get on with the job, the problem of overcrowding on our railways will be vastly more acute in five or six years than it is now. That will undermine any attempt to deliver a more environmentally friendly transport strategy or to boost the future of our railways. My message to Ministers is that they should not look to the past, but instead look to the future and get something done.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: After 10 years of franchising in the rail industry, my Committee concluded that it has been a muddled policy. However, having heard the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I believe that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench can be comforted by the knowledge that what we have now could never be as much of a muddle as what he proposes.
	I do not want to speak for long today, so I shall concentrate on those matters that I consider to be important. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), is a handsome fellow and has handed out considerable amounts of money to the rail industry. I suppose that it is slightly ungracious to look a gift horse like that in the mouth, but the reality is that the franchise system has not produced the results that we expected.
	It has been stated repeatedly that franchises have led to increased passenger ridership, but someone has to say very clearly that there is no evidence that that is so. The rail companies cannot demonstrate the innovations or improved services that have produced increased numbers of passengers. They maintain that they have been able to secure more passengers, but they do not say how, or when the increases began.
	For most people, it is the overcrowding on the roads that has caused them to opt for rail travel, and the affluence of our society means that they have been able to do so. That means, however, that the Government must be certain that they are getting good value for taxpayers' money.

Andrew Rosindell: The hon. Lady is right to say that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely. Has she considered the enormous amounts—the billions—that are being spent on the Crossrail project, and does she agree that the money could be better spent on upgrading existing lines?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's question because I understood that the Conservative party was strongly in support of Crossrail and has been trying to raise money throughout the City of London, because it believes that the project can be economically defended. If that is not the case, it would be helpful to know.
	The Transport Committee inquiry identified two distinct sets of tasks. We said, first, that
	"the Government must conduct a strategic review of the long-term needs of rail passengers, and an...appraisal of the structure that is best suited".
	Secondly, we noted that a number of issues needed to be sorted out immediately because there was no clear evidence that the railway companies were doing anything other than resting on their laurels.
	The famous canard that only handing over control of major passenger systems to private companies will produce high-quality management and imaginative responses is bizarre. There is no evidence for it. Some companies have produced some small innovations, but the reality is that more people use the services precisely because the Government have insisted on the replacement of old rolling stock, and because some of the new services are more efficient than the previous ones and most sensible people know that public transport is infinitely preferable to driving hundreds of miles for many hours.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I shall not if my hon. Friend will forgive me; I do not want to take up too much time.
	The Government want competition, but there is no real competition in the system, partly because of the capacity problems. The Committee was worried about the fact that risk had not been transferred to private companies, as was supposed to happen. We pointed out that the more risk the Government transferred to private operators, the more money they added to their demands for doing the job. The Committee concluded:
	"It is not feasible to combine a policy of increasing the level of risk transferred to the private sector with the policy of maximising premiums and minimising subsidies."
	A little clarity from the Government would lead them rapidly to conclude that the strategy has not been successful and that it should be re-examined as soon as possible.
	The Committee found that passenger rail franchising is not
	"a model capable of delivering quality rail services".
	There is clear evidence that companies are not responding to the needs of either the system or the passenger.
	The eternal argument about whether rate payers and taxpayers or passengers should pay for rail services will have to be addressed at some point. We now have the worst of all circumstances: the companies receive larger and larger sums of money for producing more and more overcrowded services, while charging their passengers eye-watering fares that are unacceptable in the 21st century.
	We need good strategies and they must be linked to the Government's specifications. It is absurd that Parliament should cheerfully agree to hand out gold bars to individual companies without asking them to produce any standards and without asking them whether they are capable of doing what they are taking our money for. The Conservative party has always lauded the joys of capitalism, so it is extraordinary that Conservative Members now resent the fact that the minimum conditions that the Government seem to be imposing demand a response. It is important for the Government to look at the whole question of the length of franchises. They must monitor the effects of day-by-day running and they must insist that, at every level, passengers are allowed to get their views known and their interests covered.
	The Government have spent a lot of money on the transport system, but some of it has gone into the wrong pockets. I am astonished that Members on the Opposition Front Bench should suggest that the poor ROSCOs should not be referred to the competition authorities simply because that would force them to put into abeyance any orders for new rolling stock. For the last three years, the rolling stock companies—particularly in my constituency—have been trying enormously hard to get the ROSCOs to invest in the sort of contracts that would have brought jobs to Crewe and would have enabled us to compete. We are capable of making some of the best rolling stock in the world, but one would not think so if one looked closely at the attitude of the ROSCOs or the individual companies.
	The industry is at long last crawling out of the mud of apathy, and the sadness of under-investment and a management system that is unable to respond to the needs of passengers. There is a need for a sharp strike where it will hurt most. Above all, there is a need for the Government to demand that the whole attitude of the franchisees is changed so that there is value for money of the highest quality, in the interests of passengers.

John Leech: We welcome the opportunity to debate rail performance. It is perhaps appropriate that I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who is perhaps the only Member of Parliament who does not have any rails in his constituency.

Eric Martlew: What about the Western Isles?

John Leech: Quite possibly.
	Most people would accept that the privatisation of the railways by the Conservative Government left the railways in a mess. However, although I recognise that some improvements have been made since 1997, the Labour Government have not fully solved the wide-ranging problems that the railways face in terms of improving capacity, providing value for money, maintaining a high level of service, getting trains to their destination on time, ensuring passenger safety and making the railways accessible to all.
	The Department for Transport was quick—as was the Minister—to point out in its annual review that the autumn 2005 passenger satisfaction survey for Passenger Focus reported that 80 per cent. of passengers were fairly or very satisfied. However, on the flip side, that means that one in five people were not satisfied with the service. That is not a statistic that anyone should be proud of.

David Drew: I declare my support from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is in the Register of Members' Interests. The RMT has organised a demonstration in the Bristol area tomorrow at 3.15 pm—everyone is invited—to draw attention to the fact that First Great Western is substantially reducing services following its successful franchise bid. Is that not an example of the way in which the rail industry is letting down its customers? People want to see improved services, but they are getting reduced services.

John Leech: I cannot disagree with a word that has been said. With franchises as they are, passengers are often not put first. The shareholders' interests are put before them.
	The punctuality of train services has been improving. However, the number of cancellations and late trains remains unacceptable. In 2005, more than 100,000 train services were cancelled—one train every five minutes. Central Trains was the biggest culprit, with more than 16,000 cancellations. Figures given for this year in a parliamentary answer in November showed that cancellations remain high in 2006, with six of the franchises having more than 5,000 cancellations up to August. Punctuality has improved—topping 90 per cent. in January 2006—but only to pre-2000 levels. Five of the franchises are currently running at under 85 per cent. reliability, using public performance measures, with a further seven running at between 85 and 90 per cent. Only seven of the franchises are performing above 90 per cent.
	Anthony Smith, the chief executive of Passenger Focus, is quoted as saying:
	"At least we now have a timetable that is a work of fact rather than fiction."
	That is not exactly a glowing endorsement of the performance of the railways. In fact, according to the Government's own annual report, nearly one in four passengers is unhappy with train punctuality. Network Rail argues that trains are more punctual than planes, but given the nature and importance of airport security, it is no surprise that airport delays are worse, and the fact that railways are more punctual than aeroplanes is no excuse for the railways to be complacent.
	I am sure that the whole House would agree that safety is paramount to a successful railway. Unfortunately, although there has been significant investment in rail infrastructure and in safety improvements, more needs to be done. The number of signals passed at danger rose by a staggering 62 per cent. between July 2005 and July 2006, and that is 20 per cent. higher than the average for the previous three years, according to the Office of Rail Regulation. Until there is a significant decline in the number of signals passed at danger, safety will remain a concern.
	According to Passenger Focus, only 45 per cent. of passengers consider rail services to be value for money. That view was echoed by the Transport Committee in its report, "How fair are the fares?", which I highly recommend to those right hon. and hon. Members who have not read it. The Government are investing £87 million each week, but neither passengers nor taxpayers get real value for money. A commuter who is forced to stand up every day on their way to work, after paying hundreds of pounds—or thousands, in some cases—for the privilege, is not getting good value for money. I read with interest yesterday's Westminster Hall debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) highlighted the fact that South West Trains
	"is currently ripping out large numbers of seats from its existing stock—approximately 160 seats per train."
	The company made it clear to my hon. Friend that it wants to get people away from the doors, and it wants more people to stand inside the carriages, to
	"'allow more people to stand in comfort.'"—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 November 2006; Vol. 453, c.102.]
	I do not know about other hon. Members, but I certainly do not consider standing in a train or on a bus to be comfortable. It is therefore hardly surprising that passengers do not believe that they are getting value for money.

Clive Efford: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Liberal Democrat policy that everyone who gets on a train should be provided with a seat, or is there some limitation to his party's desire to have every bum on a seat?

John Leech: That was not what I implied. All that I am trying to say is that if increasing numbers of people have to stand up, day after day, it will reduce passengers' satisfaction with the service. It will also reduce value for money, because people are paying significant amounts to travel on trains, and some have to stand up every single day.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is there not an inherent problem with privatised franchises, in that if one wants to maximise profit, one wants to get as many people as possible on as few trains as possible, and passenger comfort will come way down the list of priorities?

John Leech: I would not necessarily say that privatisation will always lead to poor services on trains. Before privatisation, some people had to stand up, so it is not the case that privatisation always leads to increasing numbers of people having to stand up and being forced to travel in a way that is not comfortable.
	A passenger who pays the full fare for a ticket should be able to expect a decent level of customer service. I spend a lot of time on Virgin's west coast main line route, as do other hon. Members, and I have lost count of the number of times that I have been on the last train back to Manchester and have found that there are no staff—not even to clear up the rubbish in the coaches—until Milton Keynes, when they are picked up to run the services. I have no complaint about the service provided by individual members of staff on the trains that I use; in fact, I have been impressed by the staff who work on Virgin trains. On some of the less busy trains, however, the standard of service drops to such an extent that the carriages are full of rubbish. That is true, too, of weekend services, which are badly affected by maintenance work and staff shortages, often resulting in trains from Manchester to London taking twice as long as the fastest services during the week.

Eric Martlew: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the west coast main line, and it will be nice for the staff if he wants a cup of coffee on the way home this evening. However, the Manchester to London service has improved a great deal, and the journey now takes two hours and 10 minutes. The British Airways shuttle has almost been destroyed, because people have swapped air for rail travel, so can he say something good about the Manchester service?

John Leech: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me acknowledge the improvements that have been made. I was suggesting, however, that the service on some London to Manchester trains was not as good as it was on others. I made the point that the staff who work on Virgin trains do a good job but, unfortunately, some trains operate with reduced staff and thus a reduced service.
	Passengers think that they are being ripped off. The fact that passengers cannot buy the cheapest ticket at the point of sale only adds to the belief that tickets are not good value for money. It is ridiculous that someone can fly from Manchester to London for less than the price of a rail ticket. Customers are forced to book tickets far in advance to take advantage of cheap fares, but it is often difficult for them to purchase the cheapest tickets. Trains are losing customers, because many people have been priced out of flexible walk-on travel. Excessive price increases mean that standard open fares are far from affordable for most people, and the knock-on effect is that value for money in rail travel has deteriorated.
	The Select Committee report stated that the industry has demonstrated beyond doubt that it can neither be relied upon to produce a simple, coherent and passenger-friendly structure of fares, nor is it capable of maintaining reasonable ticket prices. Prices continue to rise. In January 2006, commuters faced a double whammy, as they had to return to work after Christmas and pay a fare increase of up to 9 per cent. Recent announcements, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) pointed out, will result in further increases so that after this year's Christmas break passengers will again be subject to higher fares.

David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. There is a huge differential between the peak and off-peak travel, so there is serious discrimination against people who cannot afford to pay those outrageously high peak fares. The Government should pay close attention to that problem, as it is the worst kind of social classism. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is on to something.

John Leech: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. Although £12 tickets are available on the Manchester to London line, there are very few of them. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I have been able to obtain one. My constituents would agree, as they often have to buy saver returns and travel off-peak, because the cheaper tickets for peak travel have all been sold.
	Under the Conservative Government, rail use declined. The present Government face the opposite challenge of growing the railway network to meet capacity needs. An additional challenge is that as rail travel increases, the network becomes more congested which, in turn, imposes additional pressures on punctuality. On my own route—the west coast main line—it is estimated that without additional work there will be no spare capacity after 2015, even after spending billions of pounds on the line. Significant investment has been made in the railways, but more is required. Also, we need to get Network Rail to spend the money that it has received. It seems ridiculous that last year it spent only £4 million out of a £50 million budget for small schemes. Significant further investment would be forthcoming if we give franchise holders the incentive to invest by awarding fewer and longer contracts, so that the train companies can plan their future investment with much greater certainty.
	My final point concerns accessibility, which was raised by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) in a brief intervention. More still needs to be done to ensure that our railways are accessible to all. I know that considerable progress has been made, but there is still much to be done. The announcement by Network Rail that Oxford Road, Cheadle Hulme and Hazel Grove stations will be made fully accessible is welcome, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) have supported that investment, but that is little comfort to the people who live in Levenshulme and the northern part of Burnage, who need to use Levenshulme station, for which funding has not yet been found to make it accessible. It does not matter how good the railways are for people with disabilities if we do not allow them to get on to the station to board the train.
	Overall, although we welcome the improvements, they need to go much further. If this were a school report, the performance of the railways would probably be described as a slow start with signs of improvement, but still much to be done.

Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend is a lucky Minister. Over the past 10 years, there have been Ministers with responsibility for the railways who have stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they had put billions of pounds into railways but there had been no improvement. Now, even the Opposition recognise the improvement.
	I shall speak about the west coast main line, which will not surprise the House. I have been speaking about the west coast main line for nearly 20 years now. I have probably raised the matter more often than any other Member, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but she has been in the House quite a lot longer than I have. The line is a success and we should celebrate that. We should thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), for without him putting Railtrack into administration, the west coast main line would not have been upgraded.
	When Opposition Members mention the present problems, those are the problems of success. I find it difficult to accept their arguments. One way in which the Conservatives will reduce capacity if they ever get back into power is by doing what they always do—they will create a recession. People will not have to travel and will not be able to afford to travel. That is what the Conservatives did twice when they were last in power.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) who speaks for the Opposition, said that he was deeply concerned that the ROSCOs would be investigated, because that may put off investment. They set up the ROSCOs, and they knew that there was a shortage of rolling stock. We are told that the Conservative party is not the party of big business. Who owns the ROSCOs but the big banks? We must have the investigation, but there is a problem in the rolling stock factories that we still have, and those are fewer than we used to have.
	People are flocking back to the west coast main line because it is reliable and comfortable, with the exception of the disabled toilets, which have a habit of springing open when one least expects it. I was a little surprised by the press release from the National Audit Office. It seemed to be more about grabbing attention for the NAO than about what was in the report. The NAO report sets out how the west coast main line was upgraded, how the costs were brought down and how Network Rail got it right. Its earlier report deals with the Strategic Rail Authority, which deserves a great deal of praise for setting out the blueprint.
	There are still one or two problems on the west coast main line. The Secretary of State for Transport had to answer questions from the Select Committee on Transport about why it was necessary to appoint a large City law firm to deal with the franchise problems of the west coast main line with Virgin. The answer was that because Mr. Branson employs a lot of lawyers, he had to too. Mr. Branson did well from the situation created by Railtrack. I think he got about £550 million extra. At present he should be paying hundreds of millions of pounds back to the Treasury, but I suspect he is still enjoying the subsidy. Perhaps I am more critical than my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich of the franchising system. It will not last the passage of time.
	Ticketing and pricing are issues. For a previous Select Committee report I asked the Travel Office to tell me how many different fares there were between my constituency of Carlisle and London. The answer was 29. There is no clarity in that. People try to book cheap tickets early, but they have all gone, so have to travel off-peak or pay the full price. People give up.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest frustrations in buying a ticket before getting on a train—all the emphasis is on buying a ticket before getting on a train—is when a non-regular traveller in front tries to negotiate with ticket staff exactly what fare they should pay? I have seen many people miss trains when they cannot get a ticket because of these arguments.

Eric Martlew: I agree. The other option is to give up arguing and get on the train, but then the full fare is payable without any discounts. Virgin has brought in that new rule.
	The NAO commented on a capacity problem for the future. I think it was talking about 10 or 15 years ahead. The Government must take that seriously. There are some fairly straightforward solutions to capacity, but they will not solve the problem entirely. One is to lengthen the Pendolino and Voyager trains. Unfortunately, the Alstrom factory in Birmingham has now closed down. If the line is restarted, it will probably be in France, but that needs to happen. I understand that negotiations are going on with the Minister to ensure that those extra carriages are ordered. I hope that they are forthcoming.
	It will probably be necessary to change the signalling system and that will cost money. On the original plan Pendolinos were built to go at 140 mph and we were to have a new signalling system at the cutting edge, but that never happened and the trains can travel at only 125 mph and must keep a safe distance apart. Once the new technology has been developed, it will have to be installed on the west coat main line. That will allow trains to travel at 140 mph and run closer together, so capacity will be increased.
	I have campaigned successfully over the years for the upgrade of the west coast main line. Indeed, I have been fanatical about it. In reality that has been all right in the medium term, but the Government must look at a high speed line between the south and the north of England. I hope that the report to be published tomorrow will recommend that. I look forward to a debate with the Minister when we have read the report.

Robert Wilson: It is great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who speaks with great passion about the west coast main line. It is important that individuals should champion certain parts of the railway, and I should like to champion my own part in the context of Reading station. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members are aware of the great significance of Reading station as a national rail hub. What goes on there has a knock-on effect right across the country, including the south-west, Wales, the midlands, the north-west, Scotland, and the south coast. The problem is that it has become a barrier to improved rail performance. It suffers, among other things, from too few platforms, poor track configurations, lack of access, and a fairly ancient signalling system. Although that has been known for some time, Reading has languished far back in a long queue, with no one to champion the changes that are required.
	That is why it is so important that the railway has champions. Since coming to this House in May 2005, I have focused very much on moving the issue up the agenda. I have hosted regular meetings involving Network Rail, the train operating companies, Reading borough council and other stakeholders to try to get a degree of common agreement about a workable plan for Reading station. I have spoken to Members from all political parties, and they all agree that Reading station should be a top priority in terms of the investment that needs to be made in the railway system.
	Let me explain why. Every single day, 621 minutes, or more than 10 hours, are lost in hold-ups at Reading station—172 minutes in the station area itself and a further 449 just outside on the approaches into it. To put that in context, First Great Western runs some 1,472 trains a day. Those hold-ups represent a massive loss of passenger time. They cause not only a great deal of frustration but productivity loss to the economy and to British business. They are also a strong reason why First Great Western cannot meet its punctuality requirements. Indeed, leaving aside its often dirty and overcrowded trains, it is the worst train operating company in terms of punctuality performance anywhere in the country.
	What do we need to do? The Government—I hope that the Minister is listening—need speedily to approve Network Rail's improvement plan for Reading. That would allow for four new platforms, two reconfigured platforms, improvements to access and better ticketing. It would mean longer trains, more passenger capacity, improvements to the track, and future-proofing for the link to Heathrow from Reading and the west, from which many hon. Members will benefit enormously. The changes would also mean that the negative loss from hold-ups of 621 minutes a day would be turned into a positive saving of 39 minutes a day in terms of journeys going through the station. All that for a fairly small sum of money that would also lead to knock-on performance enhancements across the rail network. The Minister should give this issue a great deal of focus and his urgent attention. However, I do not want radical changes to be made to the very good Network Rail plan so that the whole process gets gummed up again.
	My constituents get a very poor service on one of the most expensive stretches of railway anywhere in the world. It costs nearly £30 for a day saver ticket to travel the 40-odd miles from Reading to Paddington and back again. Surely my constituents and those travelling through Reading deserve a lot better. I hope that in December the Minister will be prepared to meet me and the stakeholder group that I convened, thereby delivering on the pledge that his predecessor made on the Floor of the House, and that together we can provide the improvements and enhancements that the railways require.

Clive Efford: I commend the Select Committee report to the Minister. It reaches a number of conclusions about the state of the rail industry, which should help to formulate Government policy, particularly regarding the franchising of rail services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), a colleague on the Select Committee, said that the Minister is fortunate—particularly after such a relatively short time as Minister—in being able to announce good tidings about our rail system. The Government should be proud of putting significant investment into our rail system. However, the question has to be asked whether the improvements are the result of the current structure of the system or due to the Government's efforts. There is also the question of whether other structures would allow us to achieve even more in future.
	Rail subsidy by the Government is running at roughly three times the rate that obtained under British Rail. It could be argued that if it had been known at the time of British Rail's demise that it could look forward towards that level of growth in investment, the problems of declining numbers that resulted in privatisation could have been seen in a different light. The Committee received evidence from a number of people, showing that the benefits that we have seen and the growth of the rail industry over the last 10 years are not necessarily the result of the structure, but due more to the additional subsidies. Growth has come about through greater economic activity as opposed to the decline experienced in the 1990s. That, not the structure, is the key reason why improvements, expansion and increased demand on our railway system have occurred.
	I cannot avoid mentioning the new integrated Kent franchise that came into being in April, which affects my own local rail service. I opposed the contract at the time as I felt that the new management taking over from Connex had successfully turned round the rail service and produced an improvement, particularly on the lines serving Dartford via Bexleyheath, so that people were loth to see it toyed around with.
	I can tell the Minister that not a single train that I have travelled on this month has been on time. Trains seem to linger for two or three minutes on the platform at the central terminal in Charing Cross. For no apparent reason, they do not leave on time. No explanation is given for the lateness, which often leads to enormous difficulties further down the line. Only last week, I was sitting on a train in Charing Cross when it was announced that it had been cancelled, so I had to get off. A large group of people had to get off the train and they stood around the platform trying to find out what was going on. When I asked, I was told that it was the Eltham train, so I got back on it. Lo and behold, it left and travelled to Eltham. That shows the chaos that is creeping back into the service on that bit of the network. Similarly, I was off to a meeting on Tuesday, and I arrived at London Bridge 15 minutes late on yet another train service. That is my experience just in the past month. It is nothing like the service that was available under the previous contractors last year or the year before.
	As the Minister pointed out, there has been significant investment in the infrastructure in that part of the network. The electricity supply has been upgraded, allowing for greater capacity and more reliability for local train services. We hear stories about leaves on the line—thankfully, there has not been any snow yet—but there is no excuse for the level of delay that I personally have experienced in the past month. It is not what we have become accustomed to, and the franchise needs to be looked at very carefully indeed. We have enjoyed significant improvement and a consistently high standard of delivery in recent times, so any slippage backwards is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will scrutinise the delivery of that service very closely because, it has to be said, it was the Government who reissued that franchise. The buck stops at the Dispatch Box, and I will be raising the matter time and again unless we see the standards to which we have become accustomed being maintained.
	The Select Committee also took evidence about the transfer of risk, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has already mentioned. There is evidence that, when train operating companies fall into difficulties and go cap in hand to the Government, they are treated with kid gloves and allowed to refinance at a cost to the public purse. The Minister has said that there is no intention to do that in future, and we fully support that decision. If the train operating companies decide to play Oliver Twist and ask for more, I would urge the Minister to play Mr. Bumble.
	We are concerned that the present franchising system does little more than maintain the status quo. The Government need to look into different ways of using the system to create more innovation, investment, expansion and growth in the industry. We have seen the Government's determination in this regard, and that needs to be recognised.
	The Office of Rail Regulation, following an approach from the Secretary of State, has asked the Office of Fair Trading to look into the cost of leasing trains from the train leasing companies. That is certainly a move in the right direction. I would not expect the companies to say other than that this will have an effect on investment. I would not expect them to roll over and say, "Okay, it's a fair cop". I would expect them to make the noises that they are making, but I urge the Minister not to be convinced by them, and to stick to the position that the Government have taken. The rising cost of leasing trains has a knock-on effect on fares and other costs to the travelling public, and that is unacceptable. The Government have taken the right steps in the direction of addressing that issue.
	I would also like to comment on issues relating to capacity. I was interested to hear the comments about Crossrail from a Conservative Member, whose constituency I cannot recall—

Tom Harris: Romford.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to the Minister for helping me with that.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) suggested that the proposed investment in Crossrail would be better spent on upgrading existing infrastructure. I am sure that the £10 million will have a significant impact on the existing rail system, but we have to bear it in mind that Crossrail will provide 40 per cent. of the growth in capacity that is needed in London over the next 15 to 20 years.
	We must also recall the fact that London's population is likely to grow by the equivalent of that of a city the size of Leeds. No other region faces such population growth. On Tuesday, when I was at the launch of the Mayor's strategy and the Transport for London document "Transport 2025", we were given figures showing that by 2016 London's population will grow to 8.1 million and that employment will be up at 5 million. That is up by more than 1 million jobs on the current level, which means that the demand for capacity on our existing transport network will be significant indeed.
	From my perspective in south-east London, I must add my voice to the call for the upgrade of the Thameslink line, particularly the pinch point at Borough market and London Bridge station, where we need two extra lines to facilitate Thameslink through that part of the network and on into south-east London. I urge the Minister to bring that scheme forward as urgently as possible and note that Network Rail has called for it to be funded as soon as possible.
	A number of challenges face our transport network, not least global warming. We await Sir Rod Eddington's report, which I believe is to be published tomorrow, and he is likely to promote a pay-as-you-drive scheme to tackle road congestion. That is bound to have a significant effect on modal shift. If the Government are to meet that demand and at the same time meet their target to cut carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050, our rail network will have to play a significant part in meeting that growth in demand.

David Drew: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. On the possibility of there being new lines, I gather that there is a new approach from Network Rail—a five-stage criterion by which people can bid for new pieces of line. I do not know whether the Select Committee has yet had the opportunity to look at whether that is a sensible way forward.
	I have been trying to get redoubled a piece of line between Kemble and Swindon for some time. It would be interesting to hear whether my hon. Friend knows anything about that issue and whether the Select Committee can push it forward, because it is important that we get new lines.

Clive Efford: I cannot make any reference to that line, but I commend the references in the Committee's report to rural rail services and I am sure that the Minister heard what my hon. Friend said.
	Reference has been made to overcrowding on our rail services, particularly to people standing. I represent a constituency that is in an inner-London borough, but towards the outer ring of inner London. When travelling into central London, many of my constituents must stand on whatever type of train arrives at the stations in my constituency.
	Having been through the likely areas of growth in demand in our transport network in the foreseeable future, I think it is unlikely that anyone—whether Conservative or Liberal, or even Labour—will ever be able to supply a train service to central London that provides everyone with a seat. I know from talking to constituents who try to get on trains that do not even have standing space that they would rather get on such a train and be able to stand than not get on the train at all. A balance must be struck between the need to increase capacity and get people on to trains and the need to provide comfort for people on their journey into work.

John Leech: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore support the policy of removing seats so that more people can get on to trains and stand?

Clive Efford: That is what I am indicating. I am not suggesting, however, that someone travelling from Manchester to London should be required to stand. We are talking about commuter journeys. Many people stand as a matter of course on the London underground. Many people's journeys are so short that they do not bother to sit down when seats are available. If the Conservatives and Liberals are suggesting that they will be able to provide everyone with a seat who wants one, they are misleading people. I am not suggesting for a minute that those on long train journeys should be expected to stand. On many journeys from my constituency in inner London, people have never been able to stand—they are frequently unable to gain access to trains because of limited standing room. That is a common feature of our transport network and has been for a long time. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

John Leech: I was not suggesting that nobody would have to stand under my party's proposals. My point was that capacity should not be increased by ripping out seats so that more people have to stand.

Clive Efford: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's comments, but we will have to scrutinise the Liberal Democrats' budget proposals to see how they would pay for seats to go back into trains and for increased train length to provide the capacity lost as a result, and how they would meet the future growth in demand. I am not suggesting that people coming from the south coast into central London every day, for example, should be asked to stand. On some routes, however, people getting on at stations in and around London have virtually always had to stand. The inability to get more people standing on those trains has been a significant problem. On numerous occasions, I have witnessed people being unable physically to get on to a train because so many people are standing, and I have experienced it myself. There is a balance to be struck, and anyone who suggests that there is a magic formula that can solve that problem and at the same time meet increasing capacity demands is misleading people. That has no part in a mature debate about the future of our transport system.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made a similar comment to that made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) in an article in the  Evening Standard on 2 October. In response to commuters complaining about South West Trains' policy of reducing the number of seats in carriages, he said:
	"It is unacceptable that people are paying more for tickets but are less likely to get a seat."
	What is the Conservatives' policy to meet that extra demand? From where are the extra seats to come? From where will extra carriages on trains come to meet the growth in demand? The Opposition are misleading the public—and being disingenuous—in saying that there is a simple solution and that no capacity problem needs to be addressed.
	The Government have achieved a great deal, and even Opposition Members have had to recognise the Government's significant achievements in improving our train network. The current franchising system, however, has not delivered for the general public. We need to listen more to what the travelling public are saying about our rail services, and design our services in a way that delivers for them, not for the people who operate the services.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford): I found myself in agreement with much of what he said. We have heard a great deal of talk about whether the results of privatisation have been good or bad, but we are where we are today, and indeed we can move forward.
	I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about climate change issues. I strongly favour more use of the railways, and I feel that if we are to embark on any major changes to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2050, the rail network will need to participate in a major way.
	I am somewhat disappointed with the level of attendance today, particularly among the Liberal Democrats. When their spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech), began his speech with the words "We welcome this debate", I wondered which other Liberal Democrats he meant.

Nigel Evans: It was the royal "we".

Tobias Ellwood: Oh, was it? A number of Members with constituencies in the south-west are affected by what happens to South West Trains, and it is a shame that they are not here today.
	As for the Minister's speech, the number of journeys made by rail passengers has indeed increased, and I understand that the distance travelled by rail passengers in the last year was indeed the greatest since 1946. However, that does not necessarily equate to an improvement in performance. Such statistics can be misleading. More people are using pushbikes, scooters, cars—of course—and aeroplanes. That does not necessarily mean that performances have improved; it merely means that more people are travelling today. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Transport Committee, the nation is much more affluent today. We can afford to travel, and we do travel.

Nigel Evans: According to population statistics, 600,000 people have come in from 10 other European Union countries, and I suspect that they are all travelling as well. Clearly more people are travelling in the United Kingdom for that reason alone.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes an acute observation: not just the British public but everyone is travelling more.
	Let me say a little about the Government's method of monitoring their performance. They rely on something called the public performance measure, or PPM, which is their yardstick for assessing punctuality and reliability. According to that measure, a train is described as on time if it arrives up to five minutes late in London or the south-east, and up to 10 minutes late in other areas. I suggest to the Minister that a more accurate measure would be one that specified when the trains were on time and when they were up to 10 minutes late. That would constitute a better recognition of how progress in the United Kingdom is made.
	As a result of the PPM, targets are currently set at about 85 per cent. If there is a 10-minute leeway in either direction, of course it will be possible to squeeze all trains into the "window" within which they must arrive or depart. In fact, we have gone backwards since 2000, when the performance measure was 87.8 per cent.
	The Transport Committee, which has done a great deal of work on this issue, has been highly critical of the PPM target. According to its report published in May this year,
	"it is clear that the target of 85 per cent. was set far too low."
	The Committee said:
	"timetable revisions alone may lead to further increases in PPM performance",
	but asserted that what was needed was an improvement in performance rather than the use of percentages to tweak the figures. It concluded:
	"The punctuality and reliability of the UK rail network is not yet good enough for a major Western country. The Government must set a new target that provides a genuine challenge for the industry to improve its performance."
	I should be grateful if the Minister responded to those comments, because the current targets clearly do not work.
	The Institution of Civil Engineers also criticised the PPM, saying:
	"we should not allow ourselves to be too dazzled by the figures on punctuality, currently the only available yardstick for customer satisfaction".
	We really do need another measure of success.
	Many Members have mentioned increased travel costs. It is now cheaper to fly from London to Barcelona than to travel to Bournemouth by train. It is also cheaper to drive by car to Bournemouth than to go there by rail. That is not an incentive for people to leave behind their cars. On the standard of service, as Members have said, the trains are more overcrowded, and nothing is being done to tackle that problem. The Government made huge promises in their 10-year plan, which I shall come to later; unfortunately they have been left wanting.
	In a recent report, the CBI commented that 63 per cent. of the UK transport network will get worse in the next five years unless there is major investment. It goes on to say that an astonishing £300 billion is the minimum investment needed to deliver the required improvements to the transport network over the next decade. That would be an astonishing commitment, but that figure is also an astonishing indictment of the current state of our infrastructure.

Eric Martlew: First, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is advocating that more public money should be spent on infrastructure—and therefore taxes put up? Secondly, does he accept that a lot of the problems in our infrastructure were caused by 18 years of Conservative Government?

Tobias Ellwood: I opened my remarks by saying that we are where we are. We can go back in time and talk about those 18 years, but we can also go back and discuss what Labour Governments have achieved with the rail network. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman and I can agree that there has been a lack of investment by a series of Administrations compared with that made by our continental colleagues. That is the bottom line.
	To answer the hon. Gentleman's other question, the money must come from a combination of a public and a private partnership, but he will have to wait a little longer to find out the detail of what the Conservatives propose on that because, despite the turmoil on the Government Front Bench, we are not expecting a general election just yet.

Clive Efford: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman is promoting a public-private partnership. He does not, therefore, support the position of his Front-Bench team that there should be a laissez-faire attitude and that the private sector should dictate.

Tobias Ellwood: I will not be cornered into saying whether there should be public or private money and where it should go. The point is that large sums need to be spent. There are different aspects of the rail network and there are different methods by which we can improve its services. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has outlined the general scheme. I am saying that there are many ways in which we can move forward with the sum that the CBI suggests needs to be spent. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the party he represents is in government, and that therefore it is his Government's responsibility; they are in power and in charge at present.
	In its 1997 manifesto, Labour promised to
	"develop an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution".
	In 1998, a White Paper on integrated transport policy was published; we do not hear much about that any longer. In it, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	"I recognise that motorists will not readily switch to public transport unless it is significantly better and more reliable. The main aim of this White Paper is to increase personal choice by improving the alternatives and to secure mobility that is sustainable in the long term."
	That was said in 1998, but I have not seen a huge amount of improvement since then.
	The next big initiative from the Government was the new deal for transport. In July 2000, a 10-year plan was published, and the Deputy Prime Minister claimed:
	"The plan will get Britain moving and give the people of this country a transport system on which they can rely."—[ Official Report, 20 July 2000; Vol. 519, c. 552.]
	The 10-year plan promised that £180 billion would be spent over 10 years. It also promised a 50 per cent. increase in use measured by passenger kilometres, an 80 per cent. increase in rail freight, improvements in service quality, more punctual and reliable trains, less overcrowding, installation of new traffic safety systems, modern trains and more attractive and secure stations, and modernisation and increased capacity on the west coast and east coast main lines. I could go on and on. The litany of comments that have come not only from Opposition Members but from Labour Members shows that those plans have been left wanting.
	What a shopping list we had from the Government, and what a set of promises—and five years later, what a huge disappointment. As early as May 2002, the then Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions stated that
	"the Plan has failed to provide a vision for a more equitable, safer and more efficient transport system...It fails to provide a coherent picture of what, when, why and how much it will achieve. The 10 Year Plan is the first of its kind. The idea of a 10 Year Plan has been widely welcomed. However, the current Plan does not fulfil many of the roles of a good Plan."
	That was the Government's own Transport Committee commenting on that issue.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a House of Commons Select Committee, actually.

Tobias Ellwood: I stand corrected by the Chairman of that very Committee.
	We also need to look at some of the other targets. Halfway through the plan, the Government's transport targets have been shown to be unachievable and have been watered down. They are now considered not targets but "aims", and the target of a 50 per cent. increase in rail use has been abandoned.
	A subject that has not been mentioned much is violent crime on our railways. There were 9,748 cases of violent crime on the railways in 2004, the most recent year for which I could obtain statistics, which is an increase of 12 per cent. on the previous year. That is another concern that the Government must address.
	I intervened on the Minister at the beginning of the debate to ask how much rail freight is going through the channel tunnel, and he agreed that it is important that we increase the amount of such freight. The channel tunnel has the capacity to push through some 10 million tonnes of freight a year, but it is averaging about 2 million tonnes. That is testament to where we are in our attempt to get freight on to our railways.
	Colleagues will agree that every time that we overtake a lorry on a motorway, we wonder why on earth such goods are not being transported by rail. The reason is our existing capacity. An inter-city train charging along the west coast main line, for example, requires 8 miles of free track in front of it, because that is the necessary stopping distance. As a result, any freight or other commuter train is shunted out of the way. If we are to increase the amount of freight on our railways, there is a fundamental requirement for more track.
	According to a recent YouGov survey, 79 per cent. of people identified transferring freight from our roads to rail as the priority for the Government in tackling congestion on our motorways—more than twice the percentage who advocated a reduction in roadworks, and more than four times the percentage who were in favour of building more roads.
	The Government have a huge responsibility so far as our rail network is concerned, particularly given the challenge of climate change, to which reference has been made. I agree with many of the points that have been made today. One Member raised the question of a north-south link. Travelling to Europe by train is a very competitive alternative to doing so by plane, but the same is not true of travelling within the UK. If we want to travel to Manchester, Newcastle or even further north, the plane is the faster option that wins every time. A north-south link is imperative if we are to open up the north. I come from the south-west, which is hugely overdeveloped in part because businesses do not feel that they can locate in the north, given the lack of transport connections to the south.
	There are also other imaginative ideas, such as double-decker trains. To use such trains, we would have to rebuild some of our tunnels, which are far too low to accommodate them. However, that is the sort of vision that we must have if we are to have a proper 10-year plan, instead of simply taking seats out of trains to tweak the figures. We should also consider investment in signalling, as has been mentioned, and examine the timetables.
	The rail system is far from adequate. It is unable to meet the challenges of the 21st century and the demands of a growing customer base, and it is unable to take advantage of the nation's desire to go green. It is also unable to meet the existing targets without ripping out seats, and it is not as integrated as it should be; indeed, it is fragmented. The nation wants a simpler, integrated structure that is safe, affordable and efficient.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and I agreed with a lot of what he said, particularly his emphasis on rail freight and the need for extra capacity.
	I also participated in a debate yesterday and I apologise to the Minister for his having to listen to me speak twice in two days about the railways; I promise that I will say different things today. Unfortunately, in between the two debates there has been a crisis on the line that I have travelled on for the last 37 years, such that it took my researcher four hours to travel 30 miles yesterday. It took me an hour and a half to get home on what would normally be a 45-minute journey. Sometimes things go wrong and we must seek to improve maintenance standards as much as we can.
	There has been much talk about climate change, and rail freight produces one twelfth of the amount of CO2 per tonne/mile of road freight. It would be a fantastic bonus for tackling climate change if we could get more freight on to rail. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that together with colleagues I am promoting the concept of a dedicated freight line from Glasgow to the channel tunnel, which would take 5 million lorry loads off our roads every year, transform the economics of the channel tunnel and provide for double-stack containers and trailers on trains all the way from Glasgow and our major industrial areas to the continent of Europe. It is a massive concept. It would also take most of the north-south freight from the east coast main line and the west coast main line, freeing up those lines for faster and more frequent passenger trains, producing much more capacity. If the east coast main line had some tweaking, such as quadrupling the track with a new viaduct at Welwyn and a couple of bypass loops further north, we could have 140 mph, non-stop trains from King's Cross to Edinburgh. On the west coast main line, we could have 135 mph trains, which might not be non-stop, but they would provide a very fast service. That would, at least for the foreseeable future, provide sufficient capacity for passengers on the north-south routes and transform journeys between here and the north.
	The rail freight line is my most important concern. Because we are an island off the coast of Europe we must be linked in to the European economy more strongly. We need a better freight artery into the heart of Europe and across the whole of Europe. The idea was promoted by Lord Kinnock, when he was the Transport Commissioner, of a rail freight network across continental Europe. It is now going great guns and a 35-mile tunnel is being drilled through the Brenner pass so that double-stack containers will be able to use that dedicated freight line. Freight lines are also being built through the Alps between France and Italy. In the not too distant future, it will be possible to get full-scale freight trains all the way from the toe of Italy to Berlin. We have to be part of that network, so we have to use our channel tunnel and have a delivery system—a dedicated freight line—on our side. We call it the euro rail freight route and I hope that hon. Members will hear much more of it in future.
	We have made much progress, but there are problems with cost. I raised the question of costs many times in transport questions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was Secretary of State for Transport. The costs that I have been given for rail maintenance and new track have not been challenged and are horrendous. Before rail maintenance was brought in house, it was suggested that costs had gone up by four times under privatisation. Network Rail said that what was happening was that contracting companies were working strictly to specifications that might not be exactly right. Network Rail would discover a problem on Monday morning and the whole thing would have to be done again. The contracting companies were doing very nicely thank you, out of having to do the work twice. When it was done in house, the corrections were made as they went, by directly employed engineers. The work was done once and much more cheaply.
	My hon. Friend the Minister may be aware of the railway engineers forum, at which the keynote address was given by an official from his Department, who said that there is a huge gap between what the Government want to pay for the British rail system and what they are being presented with as a bill. He addressed construction costs and said that, at present, major project expenditure goes 50 per cent. on construction costs and 50 per cent. on other things. He contrasted that with the situation in British Rail days, when the east coast main line electrification took place under Don Heath, the very fine BR engineer, who is now retired. When he was asked what the project management costs were, he said that they came to 1 per cent. of the total, with 99 per cent. of the money going on construction. The Department for Transport official said that, by today's standards, the project represented "exceptional value for money".
	The solutions that we need can be found in the way things were done in the BR days. I do not say that merely to make an ideological point, but it is clear that cash-limited projects undertaken by engineers directly employed by a publicly owned railway industry did a good job with the money that they had. The cash limits might have been painful and difficult, but they worked and we should return to that system.
	Moreover, the people directly employed by the railway industry took great pride in doing the best possible work with the money available. We need to get that motivation back into our rail industry, as opposed to the present contractual relationships. Under the present system, the more contracts and funds that are available, the better contractors like it. It is very difficult to control the associated costs, as is shown by the fact that Network Rail is bringing its maintenance arrangements back in-house. I suggest that we return to something resembling what we had in the past—an integrated rail system with directly employed engineers.
	My hon. Friend the Minister knows what I think about franchising, so I shall not repeat what I said yesterday. However, I urge him to look at the report of the seminar on railway engineering costs of 14 June 2005, when one of his officials made such a telling address about how costs could be reduced.
	That is the way forward. If costs are brought down, we will get more for our money, and fares and freight charges will also be cut. Our rail system might then start to look a bit more like the systems on the continent, where fares are much lower. In addition, the travelling public will get a much fairer deal.
	We are well into a new railway age, and that is very welcome. I have always believed passionately in the railways and seen them as the future, and it is clear that this House and the Government now share that conviction. There is still a bit of a problem with the Treasury but, once that comes onside, we will certainly be winning.

Tom Harris: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to some of the comments that have been made in the debate.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) strongly criticised the Government for exercising what he called a high degree of operational control. That is an important matter, and I hope that he will bear with me as I set out my argument. If the Government were to abrogate their responsibility to set down minimum timetable standards, does he believe that private rail operators would continue—perhaps for altruistic reasons—to run services on lines that they deemed to be unprofitable? Were the Government to adopt that approach, I am sure that he would be one of the many MPs knocking on my door and asking me to intervene. He would want the Government to do what we are doing already—that is, specify minimum levels of standards.
	Earlier, I issued a challenged to the hon. Gentleman. I asked whether, if he were to become Secretary of State for Transport in a future Government, he would commit his party to a completely laissez-faire policy in respect of the railways. I wanted him to say, on the record, whether a future Conservative Government would set those minimum standards. It is telling that he refused to offer that commitment, which means either that he is convinced that private operating companies should be allowed to set any level of standards that they choose, or that he thinks the Government should intervene.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Tom Harris: I see that the hon. Gentleman is ready to intervene. I am very pleased.

Chris Grayling: I am delighted to confirm that I believe that the Government, as a major funder of the rail network, have the right to set minimum requirements for the money that they spend. The problem is the degree of micro-management that this Government pursue across the rail industry, with decisions being taken at a level well below what is appropriate. The Government should have a strategic approach, and not get involved with minute operational details in the way that they do at present.

Tom Harris: I am still not clear whether that means that a future, hypothetical Conservative Government would set specific minimum service levels for rail lines. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. It is perfectly legitimate to hold the view that the Government should not specify service levels, although I do not agree with it, but he must understand the real political consequences. Does he believe that Governments should take only a general strategic view? The Labour Government take a strategic view, but if he believes that the Government's role should end there, and that Members of the House would not want Government intervention on such matters, his mythical and hypothetical tenure of office will be extremely short and panic-stricken.

Clive Efford: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. I pointed out in my speech that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) had indicated that he was against taking seats out of trains. Presumably if he was in power he would want to put them back. Is that micro-managing the industry or not?

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend pre-empts me. I was about to make that point. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has been consistent in saying that he does not want the Government to micro-manage and to specify conditions, but I detect a note of criticism when he stands at the Dispatch Box talking about South West Trains removing seats from certain trains. I may be mistaken, but he seems to be criticising the Government for the removal of those seats. Is he saying that the Government should intervene to stop SWT removing seats? Does he believe that future Secretaries of State for Transport should intervene at that level and stop train-operating company managements reconfiguring the seating arrangements on their trains? I suspect not.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to fare increases. He said that the amount of money paid by taxpayers was at an all-time high—those may not have been his exact words, I am paraphrasing. As he knows, some fares are regulated but others are not. If he is saying that more fares should be regulated, that is certainly an interesting policy proposal. If we regulated more fares, we would have to subsidise the private operating companies to an even greater extent. Does he believe that the Government should put more money than we do already into private train-operating companies to keep unregulated ticket prices down?

Chris Grayling: I shall be delighted to swap seats with the Secretary of State for Transport and explain my strategy in detail to the House—sooner rather than later, I hope. Furthermore, I will happily debate it with the Minister when I can do more than merely intervene, with only a small window to make my comments. In the meantime, does he accept my view that the way the Government have changed the franchising process is flawed and that the consequence will be more overcrowded trains and a less good deal for the passenger? I shall welcome the opportunity to debate the matter with him further in due course.

Clive Efford: We have just had an opportunity.

Tom Harris: As my hon. Friend says, we had the opportunity today to discuss precisely those matters. The British public will probably expect the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to set out his proposals for the rail industry before the general election rather than after he claims his seat on the Treasury Bench.
	I want to talk about the South West Trains franchise, which was announced in September and to which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and several Members referred. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is served by South West Trains so it is perfectly legitimate for him to talk about the franchise. He cast aspersions, but much in the franchise is good news for the travelling public. He questioned whether there will really be increases in capacity and seats—there will. There will be new rolling stock. Smartcard ticketing will be rolled out. There will be more secure stations; 95 per cent. of all passengers using the South West Trains network will travel to and from secure stations. There will be gating at stations, including Waterloo, as a way of preserving revenue. If he is not aware of some of those important, positive developments in the franchise, I am more than happy to write to him with the details. If he wants, I will even phone him. I do not know whether he has a mobile phone, but if he wants to give me the number, I am more than happy to get the information to him.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about the rolling stock companies and asked whether it was true that there was going to be a moratorium—he predicted a two-year moratorium—on the building of new train stock. Is he saying that, with the suggestion in the air that the rolling stock companies are making excess profits—massive profits that would account for something like 8 per cent. of the total cost of tickets—we should not have asked for a full inquiry into that business, simply because of the fear that those companies would stop producing new trucks? That is a dangerous attitude for someone in his position to take. The Government have a responsibility to be a good steward of the public purse and if the inquiry that we hope will take place reveals that we could be using some of that money for investment in the rail industry, I would have thought that he would welcome that.
	What was missing from the hon. Gentleman's contribution was a solution. He talked at length about the criticisms that he has of the Government's policy. That is his job. I accept that. He is a member of the shadow Cabinet; he is in opposition; his job is to criticise the Government. However, a part of opposition is also to come up with alternative answers. His comments were noticeably lacking in any positive suggestion for finding a way to meet the challenges in the rail industry in the 21st century.
	A similar comment could be made of the speech by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech). I accept that he is standing in for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but some of the comments that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington made just do not chime with reality. At the beginning of his speech, he said that the Government were letting the public down in terms of passenger safety. He is clearly not aware that passenger safety on the railways is at an all-time high — [ Interruption. ] He is now claiming from a sedentary position that he did not say that. I am sure that  Hansard will show that he made a criticism of passenger safety.

John Leech: What I said was that there was still some way to go on safety when signals passed at danger have increased over the last 12 months.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman did talk about signals passed at danger, but I am talking about a separate part of his comments. He started his speech by making a comment about passenger safety, without reference to signals passed at danger. If that is what he meant, I accept that. It is something that the Government will continue to monitor. Just for the record, passenger safety on the railways has been going up historically and is now at an all-time high. It was going up during British Rail's tenure and it continued to go up after privatisation. It has certainly been going up over the past 10 years under the stewardship of this Government.
	Rather than accept the fact that passenger surveys have shown that eight out of 10 passengers are happy with the service, the hon. Gentleman chose instead to emphasise that one in five passengers are unhappy with the service. That is a typically Liberal Democrat analysis. He forgot to point out, as I pointed out in my original comments, that for eight out of 10 passengers to be satisfied with the service is, in itself, an all-time record high. I find it a bit churlish of him and his party not to accept that that is quite an achievement at a time when we face so many challenges in terms of capacity.
	The hon. Gentleman said that there is still much to be done, but I come back to my criticism of the comments by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. Just because the Liberal Democrats are not, and never will be, in a position to form a Government, or part of a Government, that is no excuse for not having proper policies. I recognise that he accepted some of the good things that are happening in the railways, but it is not acceptable simply to stand in the corner of the Chamber and make criticism after criticism of the Government, without offering at least some glimmer of what the Liberal Democrats might do in the alternate reality where they form a Government. He did not talk about increased spending, what new investment the Liberal Democrats might make, or what new tracks they might build. I am sure that very few of the dozens of people across the country watching this debate will conclude that the Liberal Democrats have anything positive to offer, in terms of policy on the network.

Tobias Ellwood: With reference to the millions of people who, I am sure, are glued to their television sets as they watch this debate, the Minister has been speaking for nigh on 13 minutes, and has focused very much on Liberal Democrat and Conservative views. A number of issues were put to him concerning his brief and the fact that he is currently in charge. He is at the helm, and things are not quite all right. Will he turn his attention to the issues raised by Members on both sides of the Chamber?

Tom Harris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's guidance, and I will learn at his knee about his experience in the House, which is obviously significant, compared with mine.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke with typically deep knowledge and feeling about the railways. As usual, the House listened carefully to her comments—I certainly did—and, as I said, her Committee's substantial and thought-provoking report will receive a response from the Government in due course.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) started by acknowledging that the Government's investment, of which they are rightly proud, has produced results. He talked about developments in in-cab signalling, and he is right to say that that technological innovation could have a major impact, helping us to improve track capacity in future. The Department certainly wants that to be developed. I pay tribute to him, because since I first came to the House—and long before—he has been well known as a doughty campaigner for the west coast main line, which is crucial to his constituency.
	The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) spoke of his commitment to Reading station, and I know that the subject is important to him and to the citizens of Reading—and, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). The hon. Member for Reading, East, asked whether the Government would give the go-ahead to Network Rail's master plan to renovate Reading station. All that I can tell him is that various plans are in the pipeline, and I am not yet in a position to say yes or no to any of them. However, there will be significant infrastructure improvements of one sort or another at Reading station in the years ahead.

Robert Wilson: In my speech, I asked the Minister whether he was prepared to honour the pledge given to the stakeholders and to me by his predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). Will he today confirm that he will honour that pledge?

Tom Harris: My apologies to the hon. Gentleman; I had indeed registered that invitation. Of course I am more than happy to honour my predecessor's commitment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I cannot promise to do so before Christmas—I think that he mentioned December—but that decision is not for me, but for my diary secretary, who has complete control over me and my diary.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) talked in worrying terms about his experience of railways in the south-east. It is a truism that when someone gets a train that arrives on time and is clean and efficient in every respect, they are unlikely even to register the fact. If a person's train is cancelled or severely late, of course that will register; they might even write to their MP about it, and he or she will inevitably pass the letter on to me. For the record, despite my hon. Friend's unfortunate experience, in the last period for which I have a figure, the performance measure for the south-east was 87.8 per cent., which is 0.2 per cent. higher than the national average. Perhaps he is just unlucky in the trains that he chooses to catch.

Eric Martlew: It is churlish to challenge my hon. Friend when he said such nice things about me, but he said that as a result of the new cross-country franchise fewer people would have to change at Birmingham New Street. However, is it not correct that my constituents and his constituents travelling from Scotland to the south of England and the south-west must change there?

Tom Harris: That is correct, as I made clear in an intervention on the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. Through services such as services from Glasgow to Penzance will alter, so customers will have to change at Birmingham New Street. However, passengers on other services will no longer have to change there. According to our passenger figures, fewer passengers will have to change at Birmingham New Street. There are alternative changing points, too, including Wolverhampton, where some of the facilities are better than those at Birmingham New Street. In the invitation to tender, companies that have expressed an interest in the franchise are asked to provide evidence of robust processes to demonstrate that they will provide a proper service, including information and guidance, to people who have to change at Birmingham New Street.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will look carefully at the physical constraints at Birmingham New Street and whether or not a completely new station would be a better alternative.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and she will know that Birmingham city council and Network Rail have submitted a proposal, not for a brand new station, but for a major refurbishment and redesign of Birmingham New Street. That will involve substantial central Government funds if it goes ahead, and the Department hopes to make an announcement on the scheme in the new year.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) questioned the validity of the concept of being on time. I apologise for not being in the Chamber when he made his speech—I took a 10 minute break, but it was nothing personal. I understand the point that he made, but whether we use five minutes, 10 minutes or any other measure, it is important to be consistent. If we are not, we cannot measure an increase or decrease in efficiency or performance. For example, even if he disagrees with the 10-minute limit, it cannot be denied that as a consistent figure it allows us to measure in precise detail the improvement in service. That improvement would be exactly the same, regardless of whether the measure was five minutes, 10 minutes, or an absolute zero.

Tobias Ellwood: If the Minister went to Germany, Austria or Switzerland he could set his watch according to the time that the train arrives at the platform, as it is the time that it is due. That is not the case in the UK, so we need a robust system to measure the effectiveness of our timetabling. In my speech, I made the point that the 10-minute window—it is five minutes in some parts of the country, which is strange—provides too much leeway. I accept that we could use a 10-minute measurement, but we should record how many trains arrive dead on time, too.

Tom Harris: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I am not sure whether it is an urban myth. I doubt that it is technically correct that in any European country one can set one's watch according to the arrival of any train. It is a nice idea, but I suspect that it is a utopian one. It is a delight, however, to hear Conservative Back Benchers espousing the joys of Europe for once. The hon. Gentleman said that the price of tickets was a disincentive, preventing people from travelling by train. That criticism has been levelled at the Government for a number of years, particularly since the regulations changed several years ago. However, customer numbers continue to rise, and they are predicted to do so in future.
	I know the hon. Gentleman is interested in freight. In 2005-06 the Government committed £23 million from the Exchequer in support of the British freight business. My hon. Friend—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the report [28th November] of the Liaison Committee.— [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

WORLD AIDS DAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Roy.]

Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this important debate on the day before world AIDS day. I have received apologies from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who has done such great work on HIV/AIDS on the Council of Europe and wanted to be present for the debate, but has sadly had to return early to her constituency.
	I intend to speak for no longer than eight minutes in order to give my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), the chairman of the all-party group on AIDS, an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I also speak in my capacity as chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association virtual working group on HIV/AIDS, and I am grateful for all the support that I get from the group.
	Sadly, the problem of HIV/AIDS is not declining. According to international AIDS charity Avert, there are 39.5 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS. That figure includes 37.2 million adults, 17.7 million women and almost 2.5 million children. Last year about 3 million people died of AIDS, but 4.3 million more were diagnosed with HIV this year alone. AIDS has now surpassed the Black Death on its course to become the worst pandemic in human history.
	Reading the news over recent years, one might have been led to believe that AIDS was a problem only for Africa, but other countries, including the United Kingdom, also have problems. In 2004 there were 58,300 cases of HIV/AIDS, but that rose last year to 63,500. Some, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, believe that the figure is closer to 70,000.
	I praise the Government for allocating £315 million, via the White Paper "Choosing Health", to improve sexual health services, but as the Minister knows, many trusts are operating under huge financial constraints. The money was not ring-fenced, and much of it that should have gone to sexual health services has been used for other purposes, such as paying off some of the debts. In his talks with the Secretary of State for Health, will he ensure that any future funding is ring-fenced so that the money goes where it ought to go?
	The Government promised a £50 million advertising campaign to promote sexual health, but the money never materialised. Only £4 million has been provided for a health campaign, which recently started. Clearly, the Government need to reconsider what needs to be spent to ensure that people, particularly young people, get the information that they require to protect themselves.
	On the international scene, with few exceptions the picture is grim, but at least an increasing number of services are being made available. Africa, as we all know, has been hit hardest. Almost two thirds of all those who are affected by HIV/AIDS live in Africa, although it contains only 10 per cent. of the world's population. During 2005 alone it is estimated that 2 million people died of AIDS in Africa. Since the beginning of the epidemic more than 15 million Africans have died of AIDS.
	I was privileged to attend the world AIDS conference this year in Toronto and was appalled to hear first-hand of the problems facing Africa and other countries, including India, where 5.2 million are suffering with HIV. At the conference I had the opportunity to meet many groups and I applaud the work of the voluntary sector and professionals, who do fantastic work in education and by ensuring that drugs are getting through to the community, particularly rural communities, encouraging people to come for testing, and working with other agencies in countries that have a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS or in their own communities, especially universities, helping to remove the stigma.
	I welcome the support of Bill and Melinda Gates and Bill Clinton with their amazing foundation. They do so much to help get drugs to the right people and to raise the profile of the issue. I welcome the fact that the Department for International Development—I am delighted to see the Secretary of State in his place, which shows how significant he thinks today's debate is—has given £1.5 billion since 1997, trying to strengthen health systems in the developing world and over the next three years has committed to a further £1.5 billion.
	I welcome where the money is to be spent, but I urge the Secretary of State to look at other areas where money is also vital. Will he target much of the money at his disposal at helping to provide vital drugs that are needed to combat the disease? Cheap drugs, such as Neviraprine, which costs as little as £6, prevents HIV from being passed from mother to baby. I applaud this week's articles in  Metro that pinpoint Ethiopia, where the drug has helped to provide protection for the babies of pregnant women.
	I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that in the coming years Government funding is prioritised so that vital drugs such as these are provided to patients. We must also look at other drugs that could make such a difference to people's lives. Microbicide cream could make a huge difference to prevent the spread of AIDS. I welcome the development of recent years and we are now in the final stages of that drug being tested. For women across the world, particularly in Africa, it will provide independence and empower them to make positive choices to ensure their well-being.
	Will the Secretary of State also work with multinational businesses in this country so that all introduce positive work practices for their work force in countries that suffer from the pandemic? Some companies, such as Virgin, SAB Miller and De Beers, are already showing a lead, but we must make sure that all companies that operate within those countries provide a lead.

Andrew Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the convention of the House for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to intervene in a half-hour Adjournment debate at the end of the day, but I am sure that the House appreciates the importance that he attaches to the occasion by his presence.

Nigel Evans: I, too, am delighted to see my hon. Friend the shadow Minister in his place. We have had talks about this issue and I know how deeply he feels about the problem, so I am grateful for his presence here today.
	Clearly, I could say much more about the issue, but I want others to speak. When I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nigeria recently I visited a small township just outside Abuja called Lugbe where I met Sister Cecilia and others who do fantastic work on the ground in a Catholic mission. I praise the work of the Catholic Church and other Churches. She introduced me to a lady called Pauline who lost her husband last year to AIDS. She herself was infected and destined to die. She lived in a typical humble setting and many thought that she would die soon. The drugs reached her and when I talked with her she was smiling and grateful, but more than anything else she displayed a vision of hope. Two of her sons beamed as they played around their mother. Had she died, the children would have been known as a cadet family, with the eldest brother looking after the youngest and all helping one another. That would have been pitiful. At least now the children have hope and the mother has a hope of seeing her children grow up. In this case tragedy was averted and I wish Pauline and her family the best of health in the coming years, but not everyone is so fortunate.
	On world AIDS day 8,000 people will die of AIDS and, more chillingly, there will be 12,000 new infections. That is the scale of the problem we now face.

Neil Gerrard: I will be brief so that I leave enough time for the Minister to respond. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for suggesting that he would welcome the presence of colleagues in this debate. This is not a party political issue and never will be.
	I want briefly to make three points, two on what is happening internationally and one on what is happening in the UK. The theme of world AIDS day this year is accountability. Organisations outside Parliament are asking us to be accountable for the promises that were made at Gleneagles and other international conferences, particularly on universal access to treatments by 2010. We have made real progress in the past few years. Not long ago, many people were saying that we will never be able to deliver anti-retrovirals in developing countries. Although we did not meet the target of 3 million people by 2005, the "3 by 5" campaign made a step change in the approach to the delivery of drugs.
	There are two specific issues apart from the obvious one of finance. The first is that of drugs pricing. At the moment, there are significant differences in prices for second line therapies. That will become increasingly important over the next few years. Some of the first line therapies that are now available quite cheaply will not be as effective, and we will have to try to secure cheaper access to second line therapies. Connected with that is the TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights— agreement and the way in which that might affect the supply of generics. The waiver was agreed at Doha, but no developing country has yet taken advantage of it. I hope that through DFID we can actively help developing countries to do so.
	The second issue is that of the pattern of the epidemic—that is, the growing danger of major epidemics in eastern Europe and in India and China. If we get things right, we might stop those epidemics becoming as generalised as they have become in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. It is partly down to money. However, to a large extent, particularly in eastern Europe, it is not so much a question of what the UK does to provide financial aid but of what we can do in working with those countries on developing sensible policies, particularly those where intravenous drug use is driving the epidemic and there is still considerable resistance from many politicians to adopting policies of harm reduction. If we can have influence through our contacts with politicians in some of those east European countries, we might be able to make a significant difference in time to stop the further development of mass pandemics in eastern Europe and in Eurasia.
	Finally, I turn to the situation in the UK. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the statistics. We are still experiencing a growing number of infections, although the Health Protection Agency figures seem to show a bit of levelling off in 2005. I hope that that is a genuine trend and that we will start to see a reduction. All the evidence suggests that a major epidemic in the UK is still possible. Although the figures for infections are relatively small, the number of new sexually transmitted infections is evidence that a lot of people out there are indulging in pretty risky behaviour. There is still the potential for a significant increase in infection in the UK, particularly in marginalised populations where men have sex with men, and especially now in African communities. This is not the Secretary of State's direct responsibility, but there seems to be a contradiction between what we are doing internationally in talking about universal access to treatments and what we are doing domestically in denying treatments to some people in the UK who are infected. That does not make good sense on public health grounds.
	I am deeply grateful for the leadership on this issue that has been shown by Ministers in our Department for International Development. We have had an important influence on what has been happening internationally, and I hope that we will continue to do so.

Jeremy Hunt: I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate.
	I would like to express the thanks of the whole House for the life and work of Father Angelo d'Agostino, a noted AIDS campaigner who died in Kenya last week and whom the Secretary of State has met. He was famous throughout the world for his work in founding the Nyumbani orphanage in Kitui, southern Kenya, and for his work in distributing anti-retroviral drugs in the slums of Nairobi. He will be greatly missed, but his work will continue.
	Echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I thank the Secretary of State for his personal commitment to the battle against AIDS. I would like to thank him not just for the achievement of Gleneagles and the universal access target, not just for persuading the UN to adopt interim country-level targets—the Secretary of State knows that I campaigned for them—but for putting his money where his mouth is. The fact is that DFID is the second biggest donor internationally in the battle against AIDS. By doing that, he shows—and we show as a country—that we recognise that without progress in the battle against AIDS, there can be no progress in development at all in Africa.
	I would be grateful if the Secretary of State dealt with three concerns about moves towards universal access. First, I have researched some figures that seem to indicate that the cost of distribution of anti-retroviral drugs is up to five times higher through the global fund as compared with the distribution through PEPFAR—the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. That is connected to the fact that PEPFAR is quite happy to distribute anti-retrovirals directly to non-governmental organisations, whereas the global fund tends to prefer to distribute through host country Governments. That is obviously a great concern and the effectiveness of the global fund will be incredibly important in this battle.
	My second concern is the continued lack of availability of paediatric anti-retroviral drugs, which I know that the Secretary of State has looked into. My third concern is how we are going to meet the targets for universal access in conflict and post-conflict zones—in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there is little or no health infrastructure. I am not sure that we have a strategy for determining whether we can achieve that and, if so, how best to do it. It is a very important consideration.
	I finish by urging the Secretary of State to show the same commitment to achieving the goals of Gleneagles as he showed in securing them. I am sure that he will show that commitment. The hopes of a whole generation of Africans and, indeed, the hopes of the entire House rest on his personal commitment.

Hilary Benn: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this debate on the eve of world AIDS day, and on the passion with which he spoke. I join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who does great work chairing the all-party AIDS group. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) played a really important part in securing progress on interim targets. He argued the case and got us thinking about it. He had a real impact. I also pay tribute to our absent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who does such a sterling job. I am also very pleased to see in his place the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell).
	I undertake to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health the points that were made about funding in the UK. I really hope that the central message of this debate and world AIDS day this year will be not only about all the things that have already been discussed, but about the importance of tackling stigma and discrimination. That will be central if we are to turn the tide of the epidemic.
	We have heard the statistics. When we remember that 15 million children have lost the love and care of those on whom they relied most—one or both of their parents—to AIDS; when we know that a child born in Zambia today has a 50 per cent. chance of dying of AIDS in his or her lifetime; when we know that in Zimbabwe female life expectancy is now just 34 years; and when we see that the epidemic is actually growing fastest in eastern Europe and central Asia, with 90 per cent. of cases in Ukraine in Russia, we know how much of a challenge we have on our hands. Those are awful statistics, and behind every single one lies an individual. I join the hon. Member for South-West Surrey in acknowledging the exceptional work of Father Angelo d'Agostino, who he rightly praised. I also acknowledge the efforts of the civil society organisations and foundations that were rightly praised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley.
	We are making some progress. We and others worked jolly hard to get the commitments last year at Gleneagles, and at the United Nations in June all Governments agreed to work towards achieving universal access to treatment, care and support by 2010. One way of measuring the progress is to acknowledge that there are now 10 times as many people on anti-retroviral treatment in sub-Saharan Africa as there were three years ago. That involves 1 million people. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and other colleagues were right to point out that, five years ago, that would have seemed like a dream. I remember that my very first visit to Africa was to Malawi, where people were discussing how they might provide anti-retroviral treatment to just some of the population. It shows what we can do collectively when we put our minds to it. However, in Africa we are reaching only a quarter of those who need treatment, and an even smaller proportion in Asia. So, it is progress, but is it enough? No, it is not: we need to do a lot more.
	The other thing that we agreed at the UN in June was that countries should set out plans with ambitious interim targets. Forty-four countries have submitted targets, and 20 have submitted fully costed plans. What those countries need to do is very clear and simple, in one sense. They need to build their health infrastructure, and that involves building clinics, ending user fees, employing doctors and nurses, doing the tests and buying anti-retroviral drugs. Those are all things that hon. Members have mentioned tonight. The countries in question have their own funds, but they need our support alongside that. The UK is pushing hard for donors to get their act together—that is why we worked so hard on the "three ones"—so that the help that we give comes in a form that the countries can make best use of.
	The commitments on aid made at Gleneagles were important, as is replenishing the global fund. Hon. Members have generously referred to the funding that we have made available, including the £100 million going to the global fund each year. I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey about the cost of distribution under the global fund, because we need to ensure that every single pound that we commit gets to work to make a difference on the ground.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was right to highlight the importance of preventing mother-to-child transmission. I am pleased to tell him that a further £25 million of DFID support in Zimbabwe will provide more services to prevent transmission from pregnant women to children. We also support similar efforts in several others countries, including Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. It is also essential, as the hon. Member for South-West Surrey said, that we work in conflict and post-conflict countries, where the Governments are weak. Zimbabwe is one example, and Burma is another, of countries where we work with the UN, non-governmental organisations and faith-based organisations. That helps to build the infrastructure that they need.
	We also need to take more steps to bring down the price of drugs. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was absolutely right about microbicides, and that is why we have already invested £50 million in their development. If that comes off, it will be a really significant step forward, not least because it will put some control into women's hands. Many women have very little control over what happens to their lives.
	I share the concern that has been expressed about medicines for children. That is why, in September, we helped to found UNITAID, the new international drug purchasing facility. That predictable, long-term funding aims to lower drug prices, and to get more people on to treatment. UNITAID's first board meeting in October agreed $36 million to fund anti-retroviral treatment for up to 100,000 children in 2007 and double that number in 2008, and approved $70 million to expand second-line therapy—where first-line anti-retroviral treatment does not work—to 100,000 patients.
	I warmly welcome the Clinton Foundation's announcement at the UNITAID board meeting this morning of cheaper treatments that will reach 100,000 children. Cipla and Rambaxy are reducing the price of their paediatric anti-retrovirals to $60 a year, which represents a 45 per cent. reduction. That is the good news from this morning. We have made a 20-year commitment to UNITAID, as hon. Members are aware. We are also helping countries to use the flexibilities under the TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—agreement. They are there, but people have to work their way through them to deal with this public health emergency.
	The other point that I want to come to is the fact that although treatment is the priority for keeping people alive today, if we are to achieve an AIDS-free generation—that is what every single one of us wants—prevention is the key for tomorrow and the day after. That will not happen unless prevention is directed particularly at those who are most at risk: young people, women and young girls, men who have sex with men, sex workers and injecting drug users.
	We know that women make up almost two thirds of the people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. In some African countries, young women are almost three times more likely to be HIV-infected than men of the same age. Why? It is because of gender discrimination, social restriction, violence, fear of violence and lack of financial security. Women sell themselves for food or money because that is how they keep themselves alive. That makes women much more vulnerable to HIV.
	We know that sex between men accounts for 10 per cent. of global HIV infections, yet UNAIDS reports that fewer than one man in 20 who have sex with men can access the HIV-prevention services that they need. We know that in Ethiopia up to three quarters of female sex workers are infected with HIV, yet some donors debate whether it is right to give them condoms. Some donors even place restrictions on working with them. That is not sensible if we want to defeat this epidemic.
	Injecting drug use accounts for a third of new infections outside sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in eastern Europe. We know that harm-reduction programmes work—needle and syringe exchanges in particular—but less than 5 per cent. of drug users can access them. We have to put that right and ensure that people are not harassed when they are trying to use those services.
	We know that condoms save lives, but they are in short supply. Since 2001, the UK has paid for more than 1 billion condoms. That amounts to the use of about 54,000 every hour, but in Africa there are still only enough to provide eight condoms for each man each year. There are 200 million couples with an unmet need for contraception. That is not good enough.
	Therefore, improving services is crucial to achieving universal access. Supply is important, but so is demand. That is why tackling stigma and discrimination really is significant. Stigma and discrimination stop people accessing the services that they need and stop them coming forward for counselling, testing and treatment. If, as happens in Ukraine and Russia, police officers patrol needle exchange points and arrest people, surprise, surprise, drug users do not go to use them. Some women will not get tested because they are terrified that if their husband or family finds out, they will be thrown out of the family home.
	What we do know is that where there is greater openness and honesty about HIV, progress happens. That is the case for Brazil, Thailand, parts of India and Malawi, but it is not straightforward, because in Lesotho although less than 10 per cent. of women in their late teens are infected, the figure for those in their early 20s rises to 40 per cent. We must keep on the case everywhere. As I said a moment ago, many women and girls do not have control over what happens to them. They need to be able to say, "If we're going to have sex, you've got to use a condom." Men and boys need to respect women's decisions and to understand that no means no.
	This is about changing culture and attitudes, and we can do that only if we are honest about the nature of the disease and what the problem is. Also, we must be honest about what works and in giving people the information and services that they need to protect themselves. Not all societies and not everybody finds it easy to do that, because some people feel very embarrassed and we are not always good at talking about sex. However, that is as nothing compared with the shame that we should feel about the huge daily death toll. The truth is, as our experience teaches us, that we can do something about it, and we have to do something about it.
	I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley for giving us the chance to debate the progress that we have made and what we have yet to do. Now is a good time to show that we are serious about doing something on this issue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Six o'clock.